Back
2010 Supreme(SC) 124
2010 (1) Supreme 438
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh — Appellant
Versus
Balram Mihani & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 891-893 OF 2007
Decided on : 01-02-2010
D.A. Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv., with him for the Appellant(s).
Ashiesh Kumar, Jagat Singh, P.D. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents(s).
IMPORTANT POINT
Where the language is extremely general and not clear, the contextual background has to be taken into consideration for arriving at clear interpretation.
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Chapter VII-A- Section 105-D- Applications filed by Station House Officer, for initiating proceedings against respondents under Chapter VII-A of “the Code” for attachment and forfeiture of the properties of respondents on plea that said properties were derived from or used in commission of offences and were acquired from criminal activities- The police further urged that the respondents were involved in the criminal activities since long and had accumulated huge wealth derived directly or indirectly by or such criminal and unlawful activities-Trial Court having passed an order in pursuance of these applications allowing the same, respondents challenged the same by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code- Finding that there were divergent opinions on the tenability of applications amongst two Single Judges of High Court, the matter was referred to the Division Bench- Division Bench by the impugned order quashed the proceedings holding that the provisions of Chapter VII-A were not applicable to such local offences complained of- Appeals-Perusal of applications as also order passed by Trial Court, showed that it was only and only in respect of local offences like gambling and the offences under I.P.C. which are local-Even the properties were not shown to be connected with crimes mentioned in Objects and Reasons of the amending Act- In fact, no connection was established also between crimes mentioned and the properties- Such properties are clearly not included in Section 105-C.- Though the language of Section 105-C (1) is extremely general, its being placed in Chapter VII-A cannot be lost sight of- Again there is a clear cut reference in Sub-section (2) thereof to the contracting state, the definition of which is to be found in Section 105-A (a).- It is, therefore, clear that the property envisaged in Section 105-C (1) cannot be an ordinary property earned out of ordinary offences committed in India- Where the language is extremely general and not clear, the contextual background has to be taken into consideration for arriving at clear interpretation- Express language of Sections 105-B and 105-C starts with the words “where a court in India”- If this chapter was meant for the general offences and the properties earned out of those general offences in India, then such a phraseology would not have been used by Legislature-. If such a construction as claimed by petitioner is given then it would mean that even for the offences which are local in nature and committed within the State, still the property connected with those offences shall be forfeitured to the Central Government- That would obviously be an absurd result-Apart from that likely misuse of the provisions in Chapter VIIA could not be ignored if the whole Chapter is made applicable to the local offences generally-Such did not appear to be the intendment of the Legislature in introducing Chapter VII A- Appeals dismissed (Paras 8 to 16)
Facts of the Case :
Applications were filed by Station House Officer, herein in the instant case for initiating proceedings against respondents under Chapter VII-A of “the Code” for attachment and forfeiture of the properties of respondents on plea that said properties were derived from or used in commission of offences and were acquired from criminal activities. The police further urged that the respondents were involved in the criminal activities since long and had accumulated huge wealth derived directly or indirectly by or such criminal and unlawful activities. Trial Court having passed an order in pursuance of these applications allowing the same, respondents challenged the same by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code. Finding that there were divergent opinions on the tenability of applications amongst two Single Judges of High Court, the matter was referred to the Division Bench. Division Bench by the impugned order quashed the proceedings holding that the provisions of Chapter VII-A were not applicable to such local offences complained of.
2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Perusal of applications as also order passed by Trial Court, shows that it is only and only in respect of local offences like gambling and the offences under I.P.C. which are local. Even the properties are not shown to be connected with crimes mentioned in Objects and Reasons of the amending Act. In fact, no connection is established also between crimes mentioned and the properties. Such properties are clearly not included in Section 105-C. Though the language of Section 105-C (1) is extremely general, its being placed in Chapter VII-A cannot be lost sight of.Again there is a clear cut reference in Sub-section (2) thereof to the contracting state, the definition of which is to be found in Section 105-A (a). It was, therefore, clear that the property envisaged in Section 105-C (1) cannot be an ordinary property earned out of ordinary offences committed in India.Where the language is extremely general and not clear, the contextual background has to be taken into consideration for arriving at clear interpretation. Express language of Sections 105-B and 105-C starts with the words “where a court in India”. If this chapter was meant for the general offences and the properties earned out of those general offences in India, then such a phraseology would not have been used by Legislature. If such a construction as claimed by petitioner is given then it would mean that even for the offences which are local in nature and committed within the State, still the property connected with those offences shall be forfeitured to the Central Government. That would obviously be an absurd result. Apart from that likely misuse of the provisions in Chapter VIIA could not be ignored if the whole Chapter is made applicable to the local offences generally. Such did not appear to be the intendment of the Legislature in introducing Chapter VII A. Appeals held liable to be dismissed.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1. By our earlier order dated 19.01.2010, we have dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Now, we proceed to give reasons thereof.
2. The Station House Officer, Itarsi moved applications before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Itarsi for initiating proceedings against the respondents herein under Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for attachment and forfeiture of the properties of the respondents. According to the applications, the said properties were derived from or used in commission of offences and were acquired from the criminal activities. The police further urged that the respondents were involved in the criminal activities since long and had accumulated huge wealth derived directly or indirectly by or such criminal and unlawful activities. According to the police some of these properties were in the names of their relatives which were clearly traceable to the respondents herein. The prayer thus was made under Section 105-D of the Code for authorization to take all necessary steps to trace out and identify such properties and further for the forfeiture and vesting thereof. Some other applications were also filed on identical facts against some other respondents also. The Trial Court having passed an order in pursuance of these applications allowing the same, the respondents challenged the same by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code. Finding that there were divergent opinions on the tenability of the applications amongst two learned Single Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the matter was referred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench by the impugned order quashed the proceedings holding that the provisions of Chapter VII-A were not applicable to such local offences complained of. It is this order which is in challenge before us at the instance of the State Government in these appeals.
3. Shri Dushyant A. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh very painstakingly took us through Chapter VII-A containing Sections 105-A to 105-L. It will be useful to see the import of some of the Sections.
4. Section 105A(a) defines “contracting State” and refers to any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country through a treaty or otherwise. Section 105A (c) defines proceeds of crime as under:
“(c) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity (including crime involving currency transfers) or the value of any such property” Section 105A (d) defines the property as under:
“(d) “property” means property and assets of every description whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assts derived or used in the commission of an offence and includes property obtained through proceeds of crime.”
Section 105-B deals with assistance in securing arrest of persons on request from contracting states or the arrest in the contracting states. Sub- Section (1) thereof starts with the words “Where a Court in India”. So also Sub-Section (3) starts with the aforementioned words. Section 105C is as under:
“105C. Assistance in relation to orders of attachment or forfeiture of property.
(1) Where a court in India has reasonable grounds to believe that any property obtained by any person is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by such person from the commission of an offence, it may make an order of attachment or forfeiture of such property, as it may deem fit under the provisions of sections 105D to 105J (both inclusive).
(2) Where the Court has made an order for attachment or forfeiture of any property under sub-section (1), and such property is suspected to be in a contracting State,
