Ram Lal Narang: Om Prakash Narang vs State (Delhi Administration)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1979 Supreme(SC) 12

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Ram Lal Narang, Appellant
Versus
State (Delhi Admn.), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 373 and 374 of 1978,
D/- 10-1-1979.
And
Om Prakash Narang and another, Appellants
Versus
State (Delhi Admn.), Respondent.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate (in Cr. A. No. 373), Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (in Cr. A. No. 374) (Mr. Harjinder Singh Advocate with them), for Appellants; Mr. U. R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. N. Sachthey Advocate with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, Harjinder Singh, RAM JETHMALANI, U.R.Lalit

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120, 420, 411 and 406 – Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 – Section 25 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173, 190, 482, 494 – Extradition – Grant of pardon – Two applications were filed in the Delhi High Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, one by Ramlal Narang and other on behalf of Omi Narang and Manu Narang who were still in England awaiting extradition. – Applicants sought quashing of orders of Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process to them and warrants for the extradition of Omi Narang and Manu Narang. – It was also sought to be declared that entire investigation in R. C. was illegal and orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of R. C. were illegal. – Grant of pardon to N. N. Malik was questioned. – It was also prayed that proceedings before Metropolitan Magistrate might be quashed. – Petitions were admitted by Delhi High Court, but ultimately dismissed, by a common judgment. – Ramlal Narang having obtained special leave from this Court has filed Criminal Appeal and Omi and Manu Narang have preferred Criminal Appeal – Court may mention here that, a supplemental charge-sheet was filed making Mehra an accused in Delhi case, the case in Ambala Court having been withdrawn as mentioned earlier. – Held, There was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which, expressly or by necessary implication, barred the right of the police to further investigate after cognizance of the case had been taken by the Magistrate. – Neither Section 173 nor Section 190 lead us to hold that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. – Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permitted repeated investigation on discovery of fresh facts. – Notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as 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 investigation. – Occasions may arise when a second investigation started independently of the first may disclose a wide range of offences including those covered by the first investigation. – Where the report of the second investigation is submitted to a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who has already taken cognizance of the first case, it is up to the prosecuting agency or the accused concerned to take necessary action by moving the appropriate superior Court to have the two cases tried together. – Magistrates themselves may take action suo motu. – There is no problem since the earlier case has since been withdrawn by prosecuting agency. – It was submitted to us that the submission of a charge-sheet to the Delhi Court and the withdrawal of the case in the Ambala Court amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. – Court do not think that the prosecution acted with any oblique motive. – In the charge-sheet filed in the Delhi Court, it was expressly mentioned that Mehra was already facing trial in the Ambala Court and he was, therefore, not being sent for trial. – In the application made to the Ambala Court under Section 494 Criminal Procedure Code, it was expressly mentioned that a case had been filed in the Delhi Court against Mehra and others and, therefore, it was not necessary to prosecute Mehra in the Ambala Court. – Court granted its permission for the withdrawal of the case. – Though the investigating agency would have done better if it had informed the Ambala Magistrate and sought his formal permission for the second investigation, Court is satisfied that the investigating agency did not act out of any malice. – Court is also satisfied that there has been no illegality. – Appeals Dismissed

Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. - On the intervening night of 31st March 1967 and 1st April 1967, two sandstone pillars of great antiquity, beauty and value were stolen from Suraj Kund temple, in village Amin (District Karnal, Haryana). They were of the Sunga period (2nd Century B. C.) and their present estimated value in the international Art Treasures Market is said to be around five hundred thousand American dollars. A first information report (F.I.R. No. 72 of 1967) was registered by the Police of Lutana, District Karnal. The pillars were recovered on 2nd May 1967. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed on 3rd October 1967 in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate at Karnal, against one Bali Ram Sharma and two others. The case ended in their acquittal on 16th July 1968. During the pendency of the case one Narinder Nath Malik (N. N. Malik) filed an application before the 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, Karnal 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 order 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 them to the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Karnal. 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. Mehra under S. 120-B read with Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code. After completing the investigation the C.B.L. filed a charge-sheet No. R.C. 2 of 1971 in the Court of Special Magistrate, Ambala, against N.N. Malik and H.L.Mehra 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 not present in the Court. On 17th April, 1977, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 494, Criminal Procedure under 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.

2. Between May 1976 and May 1977 several other 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 living in London since 1970, Manohar Lal alias Manu Narang had been similarly living in London since July 1974 and Ram Lal Narang alone had been living in India. Ram Lal Narang was detained first under the MISA from September 1974 till he was released under orders of the High Court, and later, under the COFEPOSA from 1st July 1975 till after the revocation of the internal Emergency in March 1977. The two genuine pillars which had been removed from Suraj Kund temple were traced and found in London in the warehouse of Messrs. Spink & Co. It was suspected that Manoharlal Narang and Ramalal 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 registered by the Superintendent of Police, CIU (Antiquities, SPE/CBI, New Delhi) against Manohar Lal Narang and others for alleged offences under Section 120-B Indian

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1979 Supreme(SC) 12

Cases Referred (2)