# RAM LAL NARANG ETC. ETC. ·A v. STATE OF DELHI (ADMN.)

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 923
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-01-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 3733,74 of 1978
- **Bench:** N. L. Untwalia, 0. Chinnappa Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-lal-narang-etc-etc-a-v-state-of-delhi-admn-7678
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173-Whether the Police have
powers to jur1/l~r investigate, after the magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence-Scope and ambit of Section 173 Cr. P.C.
A criminal case, arisi1.1g out of F.I.R. 72 of 1967 against one Sri Bali Ram
Sharma and two others for the offence of the th'eft of two sandstone pillars
of great antiquity, beauty and value from the Suraj Kund Temple, in village
Amin, Dist. Karnal, ended in the acquittal of the accused. During th! pendency
of this ca~'e •. on an applica.tion made by him rn:1e Narinder Nath Malik (N. N.
Malik) an alleged research scholar and a. friend of H. L. Mehfa, the then Chief
Judicial Magistrate was given the custody of these two sandstone pillars which
had been recovered from th'e accused.
The pilla.rs remuined in the custody of
N. N. Malik from 1-3-1968 to 27-5-1968 and on the acquittal of the accused
on 16-7-1968, they were handed over to the Lambardar of Village Amin. LatC:r,
it came to light that the pillars returned by Malik w'ere not the original pillars
but fakes.
1hereupon, F.I.R. RC 2-71-CIA/SPEICBI was
registered
at
Delhi against Malik and H. L Mehra under Section 120 B read with Sections
406 and 420 J.P.C. After completing the investigation a charge sheet No. RC 2
of 1971 wa:rs fded on 30-12-1972, in the Court of Spe-cial Magistrate, Ambala
against Malik and H. L Mehra for the aforesaid offences noted in the F.l.R.
Though an order was passed oo 17-5-1976 directing the framing of charge3, no
charges were actuaJly framed.
However, on 16-5-77, on an application dated
17-4-77 filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 494 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the Special Magistr~te permitted the \vithdrawal of the
case and discharged the accused.
During th'e pendency of the case, the two
genuine pillars were traced and found in London in the ware house Of Spink &
Co.
Jt wa.s \uspected that Manohar Lal Narang and Ramlal
Narang
had
engaged Balkisban Rawat and Nathubai Rawal of Delhi to make three s'ets of
t'aJceB and had exported the genuine pillars to London.
This resulted in the
registering of F.T.R. RC 4/76-0W(A)/SPE by the Superintendent of Police, CIV
(Antiquities 5PE/CBI, New Delhi) against l\fanohar L'll Narang and others for
aHet:ed offences under Section 120B, read \.Vith Section 411 IP.C. and Section
25 (I) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
An application under
s. 306 Cr.P.C. filed by N. N. Malik on 26-6-1976 before the Chief Metropolitan
M;iglstrate, New Delhi with reference to this F.lR. RC 4/76, was accepted on
3-7-1976 and Malik was granted pardon, after confessiorial
statement
was
recorded.
On 19-r-1976 a charge sheet was filed (RC 4 of 1976) before the
same Court for offences under Sections 120B, I.P.C. r~ad with Section 420,
411 and 406 J.P.C. and Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act
1972. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional Chier Metropolitim
Magistrate.
On 20-7-1976 the Magistrate issued process for the appearance of
the accused including the three Narang brothers out of whom the appellant in
Cr!. Appeal 373 of 1978 was already under
detention
under
MISA
and
COFEPOSA. The other two who were in London were extradited and brought
B
c
D
E'
E
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
A
to India on 27-7-1977. An application filed by Ramlal Narang in March 1977
immedia.tely after his release from detention, to drop the proceedings against
him, to cancel the extradition warrants against his two brothers and to
discharge all the accused on the ground of illegality of the Delhi case in view of
the fact that a case on the same facts was a.lready pe~ding in th'e Ambala Court
failed.
Thereafter two applications filed by the three N arang brothers
on
21-6-1977 in the Delhi High Court under Section 482 Crl. P.C. once again
B
challenging the legality of the proceedings arising out of charge sheet RC 4 of
1974 were admitted on 22-6-1977, but dismissed on 10-1-1978. During the pendency

## Text

_Characters 0–39,821 of 63,323. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39821 for what follows._

..
"
•
923
RAM LAL NARANG ETC. ETC.
·A
v.
STATE OF DELHI (ADMN.)
January 10, 1979
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173-Whether the Police have
powers to jur1/l~r investigate, after the magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence-Scope and ambit of Section 173 Cr. P.C.
A criminal case, arisi1.1g out of F.I.R. 72 of 1967 against one Sri Bali Ram
Sharma and two others for the offence of the th'eft of two sandstone pillars
of great antiquity, beauty and value from the Suraj Kund Temple, in village
Amin, Dist. Karnal, ended in the acquittal of the accused. During th! pendency
of this ca~'e •. on an applica.tion made by him rn:1e Narinder Nath Malik (N. N.
Malik) an alleged research scholar and a. friend of H. L. Mehfa, the then Chief
Judicial Magistrate was given the custody of these two sandstone pillars which
had been recovered from th'e accused.
The pilla.rs remuined in the custody of
N. N. Malik from 1-3-1968 to 27-5-1968 and on the acquittal of the accused
on 16-7-1968, they were handed over to the Lambardar of Village Amin. LatC:r,
it came to light that the pillars returned by Malik w'ere not the original pillars
but fakes.
1hereupon, F.I.R. RC 2-71-CIA/SPEICBI was
registered
at
Delhi against Malik and H. L Mehra under Section 120 B read with Sections
406 and 420 J.P.C. After completing the investigation a charge sheet No. RC 2
of 1971 wa:rs fded on 30-12-1972, in the Court of Spe-cial Magistrate, Ambala
against Malik and H. L Mehra for the aforesaid offences noted in the F.l.R.
Though an order was passed oo 17-5-1976 directing the framing of charge3, no
charges were actuaJly framed.
However, on 16-5-77, on an application dated
17-4-77 filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 494 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the Special Magistr~te permitted the \vithdrawal of the
case and discharged the accused.
During th'e pendency of the case, the two
genuine pillars were traced and found in London in the ware house Of Spink &
Co.
Jt wa.s \uspected that Manohar Lal Narang and Ramlal
Narang
had
engaged Balkisban Rawat and Nathubai Rawal of Delhi to make three s'ets of
t'aJceB and had exported the genuine pillars to London.
This resulted in the
registering of F.T.R. RC 4/76-0W(A)/SPE by the Superintendent of Police, CIV
(Antiquities 5PE/CBI, New Delhi) against l\fanohar L'll Narang and others for
aHet:ed offences under Section 120B, read \.Vith Section 411 IP.C. and Section
25 (I) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
An application under
s. 306 Cr.P.C. filed by N. N. Malik on 26-6-1976 before the Chief Metropolitan
M;iglstrate, New Delhi with reference to this F.lR. RC 4/76, was accepted on
3-7-1976 and Malik was granted pardon, after confessiorial
statement
was
recorded.
On 19-r-1976 a charge sheet was filed (RC 4 of 1976) before the
same Court for offences under Sections 120B, I.P.C. r~ad with Section 420,
411 and 406 J.P.C. and Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act
1972. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional Chier Metropolitim
Magistrate.
On 20-7-1976 the Magistrate issued process for the appearance of
the accused including the three Narang brothers out of whom the appellant in
Cr!. Appeal 373 of 1978 was already under
detention
under
MISA
and
COFEPOSA. The other two who were in London were extradited and brought
B
c
D
E'
E
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
A
to India on 27-7-1977. An application filed by Ramlal Narang in March 1977
immedia.tely after his release from detention, to drop the proceedings against
him, to cancel the extradition warrants against his two brothers and to
discharge all the accused on the ground of illegality of the Delhi case in view of
the fact that a case on the same facts was a.lready pe~ding in th'e Ambala Court
failed.
Thereafter two applications filed by the three N arang brothers
on
21-6-1977 in the Delhi High Court under Section 482 Crl. P.C. once again
B
challenging the legality of the proceedings arising out of charge sheet RC 4 of
1974 were admitted on 22-6-1977, but dismissed on 10-1-1978. During the pendency of these two appeals Malik died sometime during May 1977 and Mehra
\\·as made a co-accused in the Delhi case on 1-8-1977 in view of th'e withdrawal
of the Ambala case on 1~-5-1977.
c
D
E
F
G
Dismissing the appeals by special IeM>e, the Court,
HELD : 1. The police have the statutory right and duty to 'register' tvery
informatiotl relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The police also
have the stntutory right and duty to investigate the facts and circumstances of
the cas'e where the commission of a. cognizable offence was suspected and to
submit the report of s.uch investigation to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the offence upon a police report. These statutory rights and
duties of the police were not circumscrib'ed by any power of superintendence
or interference in the Magistrate; nor was any sanction required from a 1'..iagistrate to empolh•er the police to investigate into a cognizable offence. [937 F-H]
(a) The scheme. of the 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure was that the First
Information Report was. followed by investigation, the investigation led to the
submission of a report to the Magistrate, the Magistr3.te took cognizance of the
offence on receipt of the police report and finally, the Magistrate taking cognizance issued process to the accused.
As such ordinarily the right and duty of
the police would end with the submission of a report under Section 173(1) Criminal Procedure Code upon receipt of which it was up to the Magistrate to take
or not to tl>ke cognizance of the offence. [937 E-F, 938 Fl
(b) There was no provision in the 1898 Code prescribing the procedure to
be followtd by the police, where after the snbmie~don of a report under Section
173(1) Criminal Procedure Code and after the Magistrate had taken cognizance
of the offence, fresh facts came to light which required further
investigation.
Similarly, there was no express provision prohibiting the police from launching
upon an investigation into the fresh facts coming to light after the submission of
the report under-Section 173(1) or after the Magistrate had taken cognizan.ce of
the offence.
Therefore further investigation was permissible and was not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance of the case has been taken by the
Court; defective investigation coming to light during the course of a trial could
also be cured by a further investigation, if circumstances permitted it, [938 F~H,
941 C-DJ
King Emperor v. Khwaja Wazir ~4hmed, 71 Indian Appeals, PO
203; followed.
H
Diwakar Singh v. A. Ramamurthy Naidu, AIR 1919 Madras 751. ln
re. Palaniswami Goundan, AIR 1946 Madras 502; Mohd. Niwa/ v. The
Crov:n, 48 Crl. L.J. 744 Lahore; Prose.~uting l11spector v. Minaketan
--~-.-..--
..
..
•
·~·
..
•
R. L. NARANG v. STATE
925
Monato, AIR 1952 Orissa 350; Ramashankar v. State of U.P., AIR 1956
All. 525; In re. State of Kera/a v. State Prosecutor, 79 Cr!. L.J. 1973
p. 1288 (Kerala) D.B.; approved.
H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, [1955] 1 SCR !150; Tara SingM!.
S1"te [1951] SCR 72; referred to .
2. (a) Neither Section '173 nor section 190 lead to the conclusion that the
power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate tak~
ing cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience and preponderance of
authori '.y, permitted repeated investigations and discovery of fresh facts.
Not~
withstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a p61ice
report :mbmitted under Section 173. of !be 1898 Code, !be right of the police to
further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as
often aa necessary when fresh information came to light.
Where the
police
desired to make a further investigation, the police could' express their regard and
respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make· further investi4
g:.tion.
[943 G·H, 944 A]
tb) When it comes to the notice of the invesligating agency that a person
alrt.'aJy an accused of an offence has a good alibi or where the involvement.of
persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating
agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the
fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the
Magistrate upon the innocence or involvement of the persons concerned.
In
either case, it is for the Maogistrate to decide upon his future course of action
depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already
taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the ·enquiry or
trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be
involved and deal with all the accused in a single enquiry or trial. If the
case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded
to
some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the
newly involved acCused and proceed with the case as a separate case.
What
action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion
of the Magistrate. A further investigation by the police cannot be considered
as trenching upon the proceedings before the Court because whatever the police
may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate.
That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any
excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation.
[942 P..H, 943 A·DJ
Ram Copa/ Neotia v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1969 Cal. 316 Hanuman
and Anr. v. Raj. AIR 1951 Rajasthan 131; State v. Mehr Singh and Ors., !LR
1973 (3) P & H 561-[1974] 2 Cal. U 970; over-ruled.
•
( c) Wherf; the rep(\rt of the second
investigation
is
submitted
to
a
Magistrate other than lhe Magistrate who has already taken cognizaoce of the
first case, it is up to thr prosecuting agency or the accused concerned to take
necessary action by moving the appropriate superior Court to have the two
cases tried together. The Magistrate themselves may take action suo motu.
[944 BJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
r
B
c •
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
In the inslant case; the pros~cution did not act with any oblique motive or
out of· any malice by submitting a charge sheet to the Delhi Court and
by
withdrawing the case in the Ambala Court. In the charge sheet filed in the
Delhi Court, it was expressly mentioned that a case had been filed in the
Delhi Court against ~ehra and others and, therefore, it was not necessary to
prosecute Mehra in the Ambala Court. The Court granted its permission for
the withdraw&! of the case. [944 C-E]
3. Where the conspiracy discovered later is found to cover a much larger
canvas with broader ramifications, it cannot be equated with the earlier conspiracy \vhich covered a smaller field of narrower dimentions. [936 B-C]
In the present case, (a) the conspiracies which are the· subject matter of the
two cases cannot be said to be identical though the conspiracy \vhich is the
subject matter of the first case, may perhaps be sf.Lid to have turned out to be
part of the conspiracy which is
the subject matter of the second case .
\Vhen inve~tigation comn1enced in First Information Report No. RC4 of 1976,
apart from the· circumstance that the property involved was the same, the Iiitk
between lhe conspiracy to cheat and to misappropriate and thC conspira-cy to
dispose cf the stolen property was not known. [936 C·l)]
(h) A con1parison of the two First Infonnation Report cot1pled with the
several facts and circumstances show that the conspiracy which was the subject
matter of the second case could not be said to. be identical with the conspiracy
which was the ·subject matter of the first case.
The conspirators were different.
l\.falik and Mehra alone were stated to be the conspirators in the first case,
while the three Narang brothers were alleged to be the principal conspirators
in the second case. The objects of the two conspiracies were different.
The
alleged object of the first conspiracy was to obtain possession of the pillars
from the Court by cheating and to misappropriate them. The alleged object
of the second conspiracy was the disposal of the stolen property by exporting
the pillars to London. The offences alleged in the first case were Section 120B
read with Section 420 and 406 IIldian Penal Code while the offences. alleged
in the second case were S. 120B read with S. 411 IPC and· ~ction 25 of the
Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
~935 D-Fj
(c) No fault could be found with the police for registering a first information Report against the Narang brothers for the offence of conspiracy
to
commit an offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code. In the course of the
investigation into this offence, it transpired that the Narang brothers were also
parties to the original conspiracy to obtain possession of the pillars from the
Court by
ch~ating.
Facts came to light which indic:ite·l that the conspiracy
which was the subject 'matter of the case pending in the Ambala ·court was but
part of a larger conspiracy. The fresh facts which came to light resulted in
the filing of the second charge sheet. [935 C-D]
(d) Neither at the time when the Fir<;t Information
Report perta1n1ng
to the Ambala Case was registered nor at the time when'. the Charge sheet was
filed in the Ambala Court, were the Narang brothers known to be in the picture. The investigating agency was not also aware 'of what Malik and Mehra
had done with the pillars after they bad obtained possession of the pillars from
the ·court and substituted and returned fake pillars to the Court. The First
Information Report and the charge-sheet were concerned primarily with the
..
•
'"
,._
. r
R. L. NARANG v. STATE (Chinnappa Reddy, !.)
927
offences of conspiracy to cheat and to misappropriate committed by Malik and
A
Mehra. At that stage, the investigating agency. was not aware of,any conspiracy
to send the pillars out of the country. It was not known that Narang brothers
were also parties to the conspiracy to obtain possession of the pillars from the
·courL It was ni.ucb later, that the pillars sutfaced in London were discovered
to be in the constructive possession of Narang brothers.
Even then, the precise
connection between Malik and. Mehra on the one side and Narang brothers on
the other was not known.
All that was known was that the pillars which
B
were stolen prciperty within the definition of the expression in Section 410
Indian Penal Code were found to be in the possession of Narang brothers in
London.
On the discovery of the genuine pillars in the possession of Narang
brothers, without anything further to connect N arang brothers with Malik and
Mehra, the police had no option but to register a case under Section
411
Indian Penal Code against Namng brothers. That was what was done.
[934
F-H, 935 A-Bl
C
Observation :
In the interests of the independence of the magistracy and the judiciary,
in the interests of the puri\Y of the administration of criminal justice and
in the interests of the comity of the various agencies and institutions en~
trusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily
be desirable that the police should inform the Court ·and seek formal
permission to make further investigatio1t when fresh facts come
to
light.
[943 El
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 3733,74 of 1978.
•
D
· Appeals by Special Leave frO!m the Judgment and Orders dated
E
!0-1-1978 and 14-9-1978 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc.
(M) No. 323 and 322/77 and Criminal Misc. Nos.
1083, 1149 cl
1978 in Special Misc. (M) No. 322/77.
Ram Jethnra/a11i (In Cr!. A.373), A. K. Sen (In Cr!. A.374) and
iiarjinder Singh for the Appellants .
U. R. La/it and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-On the intervening light of 31st March
1967 and 1st April 1967, two sandstone pillars of great antiquity,
F
beauty and value were stolen from Suraj Kund temple, in Village Amin
G
(District Kamal, Haryana). They were of the Sunga period
(2nd
Century B.C.) and their present estimated value in the Intematiopal
Art Treasures' Market is said to be aronnd five hundred thousand
American dollars. A first information report (F.l.R. No. 72 of 1967)
was registered by the Police of Butana, District Kamal.
The pillars
were recovered on 2nd May 1967. On completion of investigation a
H
charge-sheet was filed on 3rd October 1967 in the Court of the Ilaqa
Magistrate at Kamal, against one Bali Ram Sharma and two others.
3-119 SC!/79
A
B
c
D
E
F
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 s.c.R.
The case ended in their acquittal on tl6th July
1968. During the
pendency of the case one Narinder Nath Malik (N. N. Malik) filed
an application before tho Magistrate alleging that he was a research
scholar and requesting that he might be given custody of the two
pillars to enable him to make a detailed study.
At the instance of
H. L. Mehra, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karna! and a friend
of N. N. Malik, the learned. Ilaqa Magistrate gave custody of the two
pillars to N. N. Malik on his executing a personal bond in a sum of
Rs. 20,000/-. The orde.r was written by H. L. Mehra himself and
signed by the Ilaqa Magistrate. The pillars remained in the custody
of N. N. Malik from 1st March 1968 to 27th May 1968, when N. N.
Malik purported to return the~ to the Court of the Jlaqa Magistrate.
Kamal. After the acquittal of Bali Ram Sharma and others, the
pillars were handed over to the Lambardar of village Amin. Later, it
came to light that the pillars returned by _N. N. Malik were not the
original pillars but fakes.
Thereupon, First Information Report
No. RC.2/71-CIA/SPE/CBI was registered at Delhi
against N. N.
Malik and H. L. Mchra under Section 120-B read with Sections 406
and 420 Indian Penal Code.
After completing the investigation the
C.B.I. filed a charge-sheet No. R.C. 2 of 1971 in the Court of Special
Magistrate, Ambala, against N. N.
Malik and H. L. Mel:u-a for
alleged offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 406 and 420
Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet was filed on 30th December,
1972. On 17th May, 1976, the learned Special Magistrate, Ambala,
passed an order directing the framing of charges against N. N. Malik
and H. L. Mehra. But, no charges were actually framed as the
accused were uot present in the Court. On 17th April, 1977, the Public
Prosecutor filed an application under Section 494 Criminal Procedure
Code for permission to withdraw the case against Malik and Mehra.
The learned Special Magistrate, Ambala, by his order dated 16th May
1977, permitted the withdrawal of the case and discharged
the
accused.
Between May 1976 and May 1977 several othe.r things happened
(;
and the Narang brothers, the appellants in the two appeals, made
their appearance on the scene. It may be mentioned here, that of the
three Narang 'brothers, Om Prakash alias Omi Narang had been 'Jiving in London since 1970, Manohar Lal alias Manu Narang had been
similarly living in London since July 197 4 and Ram Lal Narang alone
had been living in India. Ram Lal Narang was detained first undc.r
H
the MISA from September 197 4 till he was released under o.rders ol
the High Court, and later, under the COFEPOSA from 1st July 1975
till after the revocation of the internal Emergency in March 1977.
-~'·
•
•
..
,.
•
•
""
R. L. NARANG v. STATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
929
The two genuine pillars which had been removed from Suraj Kund
temple were traced and found in London in the W3rehouse of Messrs
Spink & Co. It was suspected that Manojharlat Narang and Ramlal
Narang had engaged Balkishan Rawal and Nathubhai Rawal of Delhi
to make three sets of fakes and had exported the genuine pillars to
London.
A First Information Report (R.C.
4/76-CIU(A) /SPE)
was r~stered by .the Superintendent of Police, C!U
(Antiquities,
SPE/CBI, New Delhi) against Manohar Lal Narang and others, for
alleged offences under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code ;read with
Section 411 Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) of the Antiquities
and Art Treasures Act, 1972. On 26th June,
1976, N.
N. Malik
made an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi,
in case R.C. No. 4/76-CIU(A) /SPE, New Delhi, purporting to be
under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying
that he might be granted pardon. The application mentioned Sectioris
411, 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B and
Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, as the
offences involved.
The application was supported by the reply filed
by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. On 3rd July 1976, the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, granted pardon to N. N. Malik. Before the grant of pardon the confessi_onal statement of N. N. Malik
·was got recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate; Delhi.
Thereafter,
on 19th July 1976, a charge-sheet (R.C. 4/1976) was filed in the
-Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi, for offences under Section
120-B Indian Penal Code read with Sections 420,
411
and 406
Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Trea-
·sures Act, 1972. The case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. On 20th July 1976, the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate issued process for'the appearance of the
three Narang brothers.
The learned Magistrate also issued. warrants
for the extradition of Omi Narang and Manu Narang who were iii
London. Extradition proceedings were initiated in Britain at the ins-
·tance of the Government of India. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Bow
Street, London ordered the detention of Omi Narang and
Manu
Narang pending the issue of warrants by the Secretary of State under
Section 5 of the Fugitive Offenders Act. A petition for the issue of
Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum was filed in the High Court
·of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, London.
The Divisional Court
directed the release of Omi Narang and Manu Narang. The Government of India filed an appeal to the House of Lords and on 24th
March, 1977, the appeal was allowed.
Omi Narang and Mann
Narang were finally extradited and brought to India on 27th July,
1977.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
7/ A
..
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
Meanwhile internal emergency was lifted in India in March 1977
and Ram Lal Narang was released.
Almost immediately he filed a
petition before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to drop the proceedings against him, to cancel the extradition warrants and to discharge the accused.
The contention was that the entire investigation
in First Information Report No. R.C. 4/76 was illegal as a case on
the same facts was already pending b~fore the Ambala Court and that
the Delhi Court acted without jurisdiction in takin[; cognizance of the
case pursuant to a report of police based upon such illegal, investigation.
The learned Magistrate held that he was not competent to sit
in judgn1ent, as it were, over the order of his predecessor taking cognizance of the case. He, however, found that the conspiracy which was
the subject matter of the case before the CoJurt at Ambala and the
conspiracy which was the subject matter of the case before himself
were one and the same, but, he held that the question as to which
Court should proceed with the case, was not for him to decide; it was
a matter for the High Court to decide under Section 186 Criminal
Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate also noticed an application
filed before him, after the conclusion of arguments, informing him that
the case in the Court at Ambala against Malik and. Mehra had since
_been withdrawn on 16th May 1977.
On 21st June 1977, two applications were filed in the Delhi High
Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, one by Ramlal
Narang and the other on behalf of Omi Narangi and Manu Narang
who were still in England awaiting extradition. The applicants sought
quashing of the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issui'ng
process to them and warrants for the extradition of Omi Narang and
Manu Narang. It was also songht to be declared that the entire investigation in R. C. 4 of 197 6 was illegal and the orders of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate
taking cognizance of R.C. 4 of 1976 were illegal. The grant of pardon
to N. N. Malik was questioned. It was also prayed that the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate might be quashed.
The
petitions were admitted by the Delhi High Court on 22nd June, 1977,
but ultimately dismissed on 10th January 1978, by a common judgment.
Ramlal Narang having obtained special leave from this Conrt hes
filed Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 1978 and Omi and Manu Narang
bave preferred Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 1978. We may mention
ibere that on 1st August, 1977, a supplemental charge-sheet was filed
making Mehra an accused in the Delhi case, the case in the Ambala
Conrt having been withdrawn on 16th May, 1977,
as
mentioned
earlier.
Malik, we may add, died sometime during August, 1977.
I
..
'
..
.1.1..
•
R. L. NARANG v. STATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
931
We are given to understand that Mehra also was subsequently granted
pardon.
,
Shri Harjinder Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 1978 and Shri Ashok Sen, learned Counsel for
the appeUan!s in Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 1978 argued that the
conspiracy and the overt acts which were the subject matter of the two
First Information Reports and the two charge-sheets were the same and,
therefore, there was an implied bar to the power of the Police to investigate into First Information· Report No. R.C. 4 of 1976 and the
power of the Court at Delhi to take cognizance of the case upon the
report of such information. It was submitted that the mere circumstance that some more persons were mentioned as involved or the mere
circumstance that the property was said to pave been recovered later
would not affect the legal position. It was submitted that gist of the
consp.iracy in both the cases was to obtain possession of the pillars. The
offence of conspiracy relating to the obtaining of the pillars having
been investigated and a charge-sheet having been filed in the Ambala
Court, the Police had no authority in law to start a fresh investigation
under the Criminal Procedure Code by registering another First Information Report and to submit a charge-sheet in the Delhi Court for
the very same offence.
That was an unwananted interference by the
Police with the proceedings pending in the Court. The whole of the
investigation subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet in the Ambala
Court was without jurisdiction and no material or fact gathered during
the course of such 'illegal investigation could be used to found further
proceedings.
The Delhi Court was, therefore, in error in taking
cognizance of offences which had already been investigated and which
wen' the subject matter. of proceedings in another Court. It was also
argued that the subsequent withdrawal of the case from the Ambala
Court did not and could not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Court.
The withdrawal itself was an abuse of the process of the Court.
/
Shri Lalit, learned Counsel for the respondents urged
that the
conspiracy which was the subject matter of the charge-sheet Yiled in
the Delhi Court was not the same as the conspiracy which was the
subject matter of the charge-sheet filed in the Ambala Court.
The
circumstance that some of the conspirators were common and part of
the case was the same did not make the two conspiracies identical with
each other.
There was, therefore, no question of any bar against the
Delhi Court from· taking cognizance of the .case based upon the wider
conspiracy merely because the Ambala Court had taken cognizance
of the case based upon the narrower conspiracy.
Sbri Lalit also urged
that the statutory right of the Police to investigate into cognizable
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
932
SUPREME 'coURT REPORTS
[ 1979] 2 s.c.R.
offences was not fettered and did not end with the submission of a
-charge·-sheet to the Court.
He submitted that the Police had
the
right and indeed, the duty, to investigate into fresh facts coming to
light and to appraise the Court of the same.
The basic submission on behalf of the appellants was that the
two conspiracies alleged in the two cases were but one. The sequitur
was that the investigation into and the taking of cognizance of the
second case were without jurisdiction.
We will first examine the question whether the conspiracy which
was investigated by the Police and which investigation led to the flling
of the charge-sheet in the Ambala case can be said to be the same
as the conspiracy which was later investigated and which led to the
filing of the charge-sheet in the Delhi Court.
For this purpose, it is
necessary to emμpare the First Information Report and the chargesheet in the two cases_
The First Information Report relating to the ease in the Ambala
D
Court was registered against "N. N. Malik and others" for aileged
offences under "Section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Section
420 and Section 406 Indian Penal Code." It was stated therein that
N. N. Malik applied to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Karna! and obtained possession of the two stone pillars and dishonestly
substituted two fake pillars in their place and returned them to the
E
Court.
The charge-sheet which was filed on 30th December, 1972
mentioned N. N. Malik and H. L Mehra as the two accused in the
case and recited that N_ N. Malik was introduced by Mehra to the
Magistrate as an eminent archaeologist and that he obtained possession
of the pillars on the pretext that he wanted to make some research.
F
G
B
The actual order granting custody of the pillars to Malik was written
by Mehra but signed by the Magistrate R. K. Sen.
It was further
recitec•. that sometime after the pillars were returned by Malik to the
Court it was discovered that the pillars so returned were fakes and
that N. N. Malik was not an archaeologist. It was finally said that
Malik and Mehra had "thus dishonestly made misrepresentat;on of
fact and got the delivery of the two statues which were subsequently
substituted by them" and they had "thus committed the offence under
Section 120-B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section
406 Indian Penal Code." It is, .therefore, seen from the allegations
in the charge-sheet filed in the Ambala Court that the conspirators
involved in the conspiracy which was its subject matter were two,
namely, Malik and Mehra, that the object of the conspiracy was to
dishonestly obtain possession of the pillars by making false representation to the Magistrate and to substitute the pillars by fakes after
.l
'
>
••
•
/
•
R. L. NARANG v. STATE (Chinnappa Reddy, !.)
93 3
obtaining possessiol} of the same and that the offences committed were
nnde~ Secti0n 120-B read with Section 420 and 406 Indian Penal
Cod~.
The First Information Report, in the Delhi case was registered on
13th May, 1916, and the offences mentioned were Section 120-B
Indian Penal Code read with Section 411 Indian Penal Code
and
Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The
accused mentioned in the report were Manu Narang
and Ram!a!'
Narang.
After reciting that the pillars had been taken from the Court
by N. N. Malik and had been s,nbstituted by fake pillars, the First
Information Report went on to recite that the genuine pillars; which
were stolen from Suraj Kund temple as mentioned above were found
to be in the possession and control of Manohar Lal
alias
Manu
Narang in London. It was further recited that Manu Narang was
negotiating the sale of the pillars through some London brokers and
the price expected to be fetched ·was approximately
five
hundred
American dollars. It was recited further that Manu Narang and bis
brother Ramlal N arang had commissioned two well known sculptors
of Delhi to make three sets of fake pillars.
The two brothers and
others, acting in conspiracy, had dishonestly received and exported the
two stone pillars.
The charge-sheet which followed the investigation
was filed on 19th July 1976 in the Delhi Court.
The charge-sheet
mentioned the three Narang brothers, Ramlal Narang, Manoharlal
Narang and Om Parkash Narang, as the three accused persons sent up
for trial and H. L. Mehra as a person not sent up for trial as he was
already facing trial before the Special Mag.istrate, Ambala. The chargesheet recited, among other facts, that the Narang brothers had come
to know in or about the month of February 1978 about the invaluable
nature of the pillars and devised a stratagem to get the custody of the
pillars. They discussed their stratagem with their family friend N. N.
Malik, informing hlm that the pillars were worth a fortune.
Ramlal
Narang and Malik met Mehra and it was decided that Malik should
file an application for temporary custody of the pillars and that Mehra
shoukl wield his influence over the Magistrate to help N. N. Malik
to get such temporary custody.
That was done.
Temporary custody
of the pillars was obtained and they were removed . to Delhi in a truck
at the instance of the Narang brothers to a place in Defence Colony,
New Delhi. Replicas of the pillars were made by Balkrishan Rawal
and Natwarlal, two eminent sculptors of Delhi under the· supervision
of Ramlal Narang and Omi Narang.
Manu Narang also used to visit
Delhi and check the progress made.
The original pillars were transported to Bombay by Manu Narang and smuggled out of the country.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REP OR TS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
A
Fake pillars were substituted and returned by N. N. Malik to the Court.
Later on, suspicion was created by the discovery of two fake pillars
which were also attempted to be smuggled out of the country.
The
two pillars returned by N. N. Malik were then got examined by experts
and were found to be fakes.
Malik was presented by the N arang
. b1others with a Fiat car, a revolving brass bed
a..'1d a sum of
B
Rs. 70,000/-.
They also paid for two pleasure trips made by Malik
and his wife io Bombay. It was recited in the charge-sheet that the
facts disclosed "the commission of offences under Section 406 ( criminal breach of trust) , Section 411 (receiving and retaining stolen property), Section 420 (cheating) Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1)
C
of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, all read with Section
120-B Indian Penal Code, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to
which Manoharlal Narang, Ramlal Narang and Om Prakash Narang,
H. L. Mehra and N. N. Malik (already granted pardon) were parties."
It was further recited "Manoharlal Narang, Ramlal Narang and Omi
Narang also abetted the commission of offences under Section 420 and -
D
Section 406 Indian Penal Code by N. N. Malik approver and these
thre~ accused were, therefore, liable for prosecution under Section
406 and Section 420 Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 Indian
Penal Code and they had also committed other offences under Section
411 Indian Penal Code." It was further mentioned in the chargeE
F
G
H
shee'. that J\Ianoharlal Narang and Omi Narang were in London and
that proceedings for their extradition were under way.
It was also
mentioned that H. L. Mehra was facing trial before the Special Magistrate, Ambala, for the offences committed by him and, :hereforc. he
was nor being sent up for trial in this case.
It is obvious that neither at the time when the First Information
Report pertaining to the Ambala case was registered nor at the time
when the charge-sheet was filed in the Ambala Court, were the Narang
brothers known to be in the picture.
The investigating agency was
not also aware of what Malik and Mehra had done with the pillars
after they had obtained possession of the pillars from the Court and
substituted a!1d returned fake pillars to the Court.
The First Information Report and the charge-sheet were concerned primarily with the
offences of conspiracy. to cheat and to misappropriate committed by
Malik and Mehra.
At that stage, the investigating agency was not
aware of any conspiracy to send the pillars out of the country. It
was not known that the N arang brothers were also parties to the conspiracy to obtain possession of the pillars from the Court. It was much
later that the pillars surfaced in London and were discovered to be in
the constructive possession of Narang
brothers.
Even
then,
the
precise connection between Malik .and Mehra on the one side and
i
/'°'\
.,
..
•
r
" -
I
R. L. NARANG v. SH.TE (Chinnappa Reaay, j.)
935
Narang brothers on the other was not known.
All that was known
was that the pillars which were stolen property within the definition
of the e:xpression in Section 410 Indian Penal Code were found to be
in the pos~ession of Narang brothers in London.
On the discovery
of the genuine pillars in the possession of N arang brothers, without
anything further to connect N arang brothers with Malik and Mehra,
the police had no option but to register a case under Section 411
Indian Penal Code against Narang brothers.
That was
what was
done.
No fault could, therefore, be found with the police for registering a First Information Report against the Narang brothers for the
offence of conspiracy to commit an offence under Section 411 Indian
Penal Code.
In the course of the investigation into this offence, it
transpired that the Narang brothers were also parties to the' original
conspiracy to obtain possession of the pillars from the Court by cheating.
Facts came to light which indicated that the conspiracy, which
was the subject matter of the case pending in the Ambala Court was
but part of a larger conspiracy.
The fresh facts which came to light
resulted in the filing of the second charge-sheet.
The several facts and
circumstances mentioned ,by us earlier and a comparison of the two
First Information Reports and the two charge-sheets show that the
conspiracy which was the subject matter of the second case could not
be said to be identical with the conspiracy which was the subject matter
o! the first case. The conspirators were different. ·Malik and Mehra
alone; were stated to be the conspirators in the first case, . while the
three Narang brothers were alleged to be the principal conspirators
in the second case. The objects of the two conspiracies were different.
The alleged object of the first conspiracy was to obtain possession of
the pillars from the Court by cheating and to misappropriate them.
The alleged object of the second .conspiracy was the disposal of the stolen property by exporting the pillars to London.
The offences alleged
in the first case was Section 120-B read with Section 420 and Section
406 Indian Penal Code, while the offences alleged in the second case
were Section 120-B read with Section 411 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. It is true that
the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act had no~ yet come into force on
the date when the First Information Report was registered. It is also
true that Omi Narang and Mann Narang were not extradited for the
offence under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act and, therefore,
they could not be tried for that offence in India.
But the question
whet1<_er any of the accused may be tried for a contravention of the
_ Ar.tiquities and Art Treasures Act or under the corresponding provision of the earlier Act is really irrelevant in deciding whether the two
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 2 s.c.R.
A
B
conspiracies are one and the same.
The trite argument that a Court
takes cognizance of offences and not offenders was also advanced.