CRL.A. No.    of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009                                                                                                              REPORTABLE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2502 OF 2009 [arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.  5332 of 2009 ]

   PREM SAGAR GUPTA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

   STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant's son was kidnapped for ransom but  

was got released by the appellant on the payment of Rs.  

20  lakhs.   A  case  was  also  registered  against  the  

accused under Section 364A/120B of the Indian Penal  

Code and they were arrested and interrogated and during  

the  course  of  the  investigation,  the  entire  ransom  

money of Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from them.  The  

appellant thereafter moved an application under Section  

451 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions  

Court,  Calcutta,  that  the  ransom  money  which  

undoubtedly belonged to him should be released to him.  

This application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. A  

revision  petition  was  thereafter  filed  in  the  High

CRL.A. No.    of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009                                                                                                              REPORTABLE 2

Court.  The High Court allowed the revision petition on  

the following terms:-  

“Accordingly, application is allowed.  The learned Magistrate asked the I.O. To do  the following: 1. Detailed noting of the number of each  currency note. 2. Taking  photographs  of  each  currency  note. 3. Photographs of the currency notes are  to  be  attested  or  countersigned  by  the  complainant and accused. 4. The  notes  should  be  kept  in  bank  locker  by  the  complainant  and  shall  be  produced at the time of trial. 5. Bond of equal amount of Rs. 20 lacs  shall be executed by the complainant.”

3. It  has  been  submitted  that  some  of  the  

conditions  imposed  by  the  High   Court  particularly  

condition Nos. 4 and 5 were onerous in the light of the  

fact  that  the  money  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  

appellant.  We are indeed surprised that a very hyper  

technical view has been taken by the High Court in  

making the impugned order as the money constitutes the  

ransom that had been paid by the appellant to secure  

the  freedom  of  his  son.   To  our  mind,  to  ask  the  

appellant to comply with condition Nos. 4 and 5 would  

be extremely harsh and also adding insult to injury.   

5. We,  accordingly,  allow  this  appeal  and  direct  

that condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be complied with  

but condition Nos. 4 and 5, are held to be unreasonable

CRL.A. No.    of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009                                                                                                              REPORTABLE 3

and are quashed.  We direct that the the money should  

be  released   within  a  period  of  three  months  from  

today.   We further direct the Investigating Officer to  

ensure  compliance  with  condition  Nos.  1,  2  and  3  

before payment.  

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 11, 2009.

CRL.A. No.    of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009                                                                                                              REPORTABLE 4