# HAZARI LAL GUPTA v. RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 666
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-12-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 110 to 113 of 1971
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, D. G. Palekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hazari-lal-gupta-v-rameshwar-prashad-anr-5528
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898), ss. 496, 497, 498 and 561A
-Powers of Hiph Court under.
Tae appellant was living and doing business in the United Kingdom.
He was arrested for offences under ss. 406 and 420 l.P .C., when he came
to India, on information given by the complainants. Pencling investigation, he applied for bail and the court ordered that he may be released on
bail on bis furnishing personal bonds and sureties. He then apphed to
the High Court for modification of the order, undertaking not to leave
India and to surrender his passport, and the High Court reduced the
amount of the personal bonds and of the sureties. Thereafter, the complainants applied to the High Court under ss. 498 and 561A, Cr.. P.C.,
praying that the appellant should be directed to surrender bis passport
before enlarging him on bail and the High Court passed orders accordingly.
The appellant surrendered his passport and was released on bail. He then
applied under s. 561A to the High Court praying : ( 1) that the proceedings based upon the First Information Report lodged by the complainants
be quashed, (2) that the order of the High Court directing the appellant
to surrender the passport be modified and the appellant's passport be released, and (3) that the restrictions imposed on him not to lea\'e India
may be cancelled. The High Court dismissed the application,
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD :
(1) In exercising the inherent jurisdiction, under s. 561A.
the High Court can quash proceeclings if there is no legal evidence or if
there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings:
but the High Court may not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence
is reliable or not.
Where again, iffvestigation into the circumstances of an
alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Code
the High Court should not interfere with such investigation, because, it
would then be impeding investigation and the jurisdiction of statutory
authorities exercising power in accordance \vith the provisions of the
Code. [670 C-E]
R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388 and State of
West Bengal v. S. N. Basak [.1963] 2 S.C.R. 53, referred to.
(2) Sections 496. 497 and 498, Cr .. P.C., are not exhaustive of the
powers of the court in regard to terms and conditions of bilil particularly
when the High Court was dealing with the cases of this type under s.
561A, and the apprehension of the appellant jumping bail could not be
brushed aside. [669 H; 670 Al
(3) When the High Court passed orders reducing the sureties and
thereafter passed an order d_irectir;ig the appelfant to surrender his passport and the appellant comphed with the orders and was released on bail.
the. ~ppellant could not again come up under s. 56 l A for modifying ancl
I'Ov1S10g the orders passed by the High Court, [669 F-G]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
H. L. GUPTA V. RAMESHWAR (Ray, J.)
667
A

## Text

666
HAZARI LAL GUPTA
v.
RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR.
December 2, 1971
(A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898), ss. 496, 497, 498 and 561A
-Powers of Hiph Court under.
Tae appellant was living and doing business in the United Kingdom.
He was arrested for offences under ss. 406 and 420 l.P .C., when he came
to India, on information given by the complainants. Pencling investigation, he applied for bail and the court ordered that he may be released on
bail on bis furnishing personal bonds and sureties. He then apphed to
the High Court for modification of the order, undertaking not to leave
India and to surrender his passport, and the High Court reduced the
amount of the personal bonds and of the sureties. Thereafter, the complainants applied to the High Court under ss. 498 and 561A, Cr.. P.C.,
praying that the appellant should be directed to surrender bis passport
before enlarging him on bail and the High Court passed orders accordingly.
The appellant surrendered his passport and was released on bail. He then
applied under s. 561A to the High Court praying : ( 1) that the proceedings based upon the First Information Report lodged by the complainants
be quashed, (2) that the order of the High Court directing the appellant
to surrender the passport be modified and the appellant's passport be released, and (3) that the restrictions imposed on him not to lea\'e India
may be cancelled. The High Court dismissed the application,
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD :
(1) In exercising the inherent jurisdiction, under s. 561A.
the High Court can quash proceeclings if there is no legal evidence or if
there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings:
but the High Court may not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence
is reliable or not.
Where again, iffvestigation into the circumstances of an
alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Code
the High Court should not interfere with such investigation, because, it
would then be impeding investigation and the jurisdiction of statutory
authorities exercising power in accordance \vith the provisions of the
Code. [670 C-E]
R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388 and State of
West Bengal v. S. N. Basak [.1963] 2 S.C.R. 53, referred to.
(2) Sections 496. 497 and 498, Cr .. P.C., are not exhaustive of the
powers of the court in regard to terms and conditions of bilil particularly
when the High Court was dealing with the cases of this type under s.
561A, and the apprehension of the appellant jumping bail could not be
brushed aside. [669 H; 670 Al
(3) When the High Court passed orders reducing the sureties and
thereafter passed an order d_irectir;ig the appelfant to surrender his passport and the appellant comphed with the orders and was released on bail.
the. ~ppellant could not again come up under s. 56 l A for modifying ancl
I'Ov1S10g the orders passed by the High Court, [669 F-G]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
H. L. GUPTA V. RAMESHWAR (Ray, J.)
667
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos.
110 to 113 of 1971.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 22, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
Petiticms Nos. 2675 to 2678 of 1970.
B
G. N. Dikshit and S. K. Bisaria, for the appeJlant (in all the
c
D
E
F
G
H
appeals).
R. Hana, for respondent No. 1 (in all the appeals).
0. P. ??.ana, for respondent No. 2 (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.
These four appeals are by special leave against the
order dated 22 March, 1971 of the High Court at Allahabad
dismissing the applications of the appellant under section 561-A
of the Criminal ProCP.dure Code for quashing the proceedings
based upon first information report lodged against the appellant by
the four respondents.
The appellant has been living and doing business in the United Kingdom since the year 1963.
The appellant is one of the
Directors of M/s H. Gupta (London) Limited and Oriental Wool
Crafts Limited carrying on business in England.
The company
is dealing in the business of carpets imported from India.
Sometime in the month of June, 1970 four complaints were
lodged against the appellant.
The complainants are residents of
Bhadohi in the District of Varanasi.
The complainants are
manufacturers of carpets.
The complainants came in
contact
with the appellant in the year 1962.
The complainants and the
appellant had dealings and transactions in carpets.
In the year
1965 the appellant withheld payment of several bills representing
the price of carpets sent by ihe complainants to the appellant. In
the year 1965 the appellant came to India.
The complainants
demanded money.
The appellant said that he would send them
payment from London.
The complainants did not receive any
money.
When the appellant came to India in 1970 the com•
plainants were kept in the dark about his visit to India.
Eventually, the complainants came to know about it.
The com·
plainants on or about 4 July, 1970 lodged complaints against the
appellant;.
The appellant was thereafter arrested for offences
under
sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the first information report of the complainants.
The Additional District Magistrate, Gyanpur refused bail.
On 13 July, 1970 the appellant applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi iri Uttar Pradesh.
The appellant was to
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
be enlarged on bail and the sureties were to be two of Rs. 40,000
each in one case, two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each in the second
case and. two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each in the third case and
two sureties of Rs. 15,000 each in the fourth case and in each
case there was to be a personal bond of the like amount. The
appellant was also asked not to leave India without the pem1ission of the court. The appellant was unable to furnish th·~ sureties.
The appellant thereafter applied to the High Court at
Allahabad for modification of the order in respect of sureties.
The High Court on 21 July, 19'70 was pleased to modify the order
cf the Sessions Judge by reducing the. amount of surety to
Rs. 10,000/- in each case and a personal bond of the like amount
in each case.
The ,complainants on coming to know of the order of the
High Court in the month of July, 1970 made an application under
section 498 read with section 561-A of the Criminal P.rocedure
Code that the Additional District Magistrate at Varanasi should
oe directed to seize the passport of the appellant before enlarging
him on bail on the ground that there was an apprehension that
the appellant would jump his bail.
The High Court at Allahabad on 21 August, 1970 passed orders directing the Additional
District Magistrate, Varanasi that there would be no harm if the
appellant was further ordered to surrender his passport to the
Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Varanasi. The appellant was thereafter released on bail on 21 September, 1970 after
famishing the surety to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- in each case
and after surrender~ng his passport to the Additional District
Magistrate (Judicial), Varanasi.
The appellant on being released on bail moved an application under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in the
High Court at Allahabad and prayed for three orders.
These
were : first, that the proceedings based upon first information
report lodged by the complainants be quashed; secondly, that the
order of t:he High Courtl of Allahabad dated 21 August, 1970
directing the appellant to surrender the passport be modified and
the appellant's passport be released; and thirdly, that the restrictions imposed by the District Magistrate restricting the appellant
not to leave India be cancelled.
The High Court at Allahabad
on 23 March, 1971 dismissed the application of the appellant.
The present appeals are against that order of the High Court
dated 23 Marc!!, 1971 refusine to guash the proceedings and to
modify the restrictions imposed .on the appellant.
Counsel· on behalf of the appellant raised four contentions.
First, that the proceedings should be quashed because there was
no certificate by the High Commissioner for India in the United
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
E
F
G
H
H. L. GUPTA v. RAMESHWAR (Ray, J.)
669
Kingdom under section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code that
the charges against the appellant ought to be enquired into in
India. Secondly, tl~re was no sanction of the Director of Foreign
Exchange for prosecution.
Thirdly, the report
under section
169 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Investigation Officer
was not placed.
Fourthly, there was no case against the appellant.
The case against the appellant is in the course of investigation. Counsel on behalf of the State submitted that investigation
was practically complete and the case would commence soon. It
is not necessary to express any opinion on the question as to
whether certificate or sanction is necessary. If certificate or
sanction will be necessary and if there will be no certificate or
sanction it will be open, to the appellant to canvass that ground
at the appropriate stage' of trial.
The report which the appellant
characterises as one under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure
Code does not find any mention in the growjds.
The affidavit
filed by the Supervising Officer of the investigation is that detailed investigation was started and as- yet there is no report under
section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The appellant is
not entitled to papers of the Investigation Officer.
It is also not
desirable to express any opmion on the merits of the case at this
stage.
The comention of the appellant in the forefront was that the
passport of the appellant should be returned so that the appellant
could return to England.
On behalf of the appellant an affidavit
was affirmed by Virendra Kumar Srivastava in the High Court at
Allahabad in support of the application for modification of the
order for sureties that the appellant was prepared to give an
undertaking that he would not leave India before the case was
finally decided and he was further prepared to surrender his
passport after release on bail.
When the High Cou_t at Allahabad passed an order on 21 July, 1970 reducing the sureties and
thereafter on 21 August, 1970 passed an order directing the
appellant to surrender his passport and the appellant complied
with the orders and was released on bail, the appellant could not
again come up under sec!ion 561-A of the Criminal Procedure
Code before the High Court at Allahabad for modifying and
revising the orders passed by the High Court.
On behalf of the appellant it was said that sections 496, 497
and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to bail did
not confer any power on the court when granting bail to restrict
the departure of the appellant from India by requiring the appellant to surrender the passport. Sections 496, 497 and 498 of the
Criminal Procedure Code are not exhaustive of powers of the
court in regard to terms and conditions of bail particulraly when
12-L 643 Sup,/72
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 2 S.C.R.
the High Court under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure
Code deals with cases of this type. The apprehension of the
appellant jumping bail could not be brushed aside. If the appellant wanted to retain the passport the court might not have granted the appellant any bail.
Again, the reduction of the surety
was made in order to enable the appellant to be enlarged on bail.
The reduction of surety was also on the consideration that the
appellant would not leave India.
The inherent power of the High Court under secti'on 561-A
of the Criminal Procedure Code has been considered by
this
Court in R. P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab(1) and State of West
Bengal v. S. N. Basak. (') Iii exercising jurisdiction under section
561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court can quash
proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High
Court does not ordinarily enquire as to whether the evidence is
'reliable or not'. Where again, investigation into the circumstances
of an allej),'ed cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions
of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court does not interfere with such. investigation because it would then be impeding
investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise
power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Proc-~
dure Code. · The High Cou~t was correct in dismissing the applications under section 561-A of the ·Criminal Procedure Code.
The appeals are therefore dismissed.
Counsel on behalf of the State stated that the cases against the
appellant would commence soon.
The State should keep that in
view particularly because long time has been taken for investigation.
·
V.P.S.
(I) [1960[ 3 s.c.R. 388.
(2) [1963] 2 S.C.R. 52.
Appeals dismissed.
A
c
E
F