Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CHANDURKAR AND SAWANT, JJ.
Kekoo J. Maneckji, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents
Criminal Appln. No. 640 of 1978
Decided on : 12-4-1979
LETTERS ROGATORY - ISSUANCE - JURISDICTION - MAGISTRATE - FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNT - DOCUMENTS - ADMISSIBILITY - EVIDENCE - ILLEGALLY OBTAINED - RELEVANCE - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - INJUNCTION - UNDERTAKING - PETITION - DISMISSAL - LOCUS STANDI - ACCUSED - STAGE OF INVESTIGATION - COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTIONS 91, 397, 482 - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partner in a company, was alleged to have an undeclared account in a foreign bank. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought to obtain documents related to the account from the bank through letters rogatory. The Magistrate issued the letters rogatory, finding that the provisions of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) could not be invoked due to lack of jurisdiction over the foreign bank's location. The petitioner challenged the Magistrate's order, arguing that it was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate's order was indeed illegal and without jurisdiction, as Section 91 of the CrPC could not be invoked in the circumstances. However, the Court declined to interfere with the order, considering that the documents had already been received by the CBI and were in their possession. The Court reasoned that the manner in which the documents were acquired did not affect their admissibility as evidence, and that the petitioner would have the opportunity to challenge their relevance and genuineness during the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to issue letters rogatory to obtain documents from a foreign bank. 2. Whether the documents obtained through the illegal issuance of letters rogatory were admissible as evidence. 3. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the Magistrate's order at the stage of investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue letters rogatory under Section 91 of the CrPC, as the provision was not applicable to the situation where the foreign bank was located outside the Court's jurisdiction. 2. The Court relied on precedents established by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of India, which held that the admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and not by the manner in which it was obtained. Therefore, the documents obtained through the illegal issuance of letters rogatory were not rendered inadmissible solely due to the procedural irregularity. 3. The Court held that the petitioner, as an accused person at the stage of investigation, did not have locus standi to challenge the Magistrate's order. The Court reasoned that the petitioner could only challenge the admissibility of the documents during the trial, and that the collection of evidence was not a matter for the accused to control or interfere with.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Magistrate's order was illegal but declining to interfere with it due to the documents being already in the possession of the CBI and their admissibility not being affected by the procedural irregularity. The Court also held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the order at the stage of investigation.
CHANDURKAR, J. :- This is a petition filed under Sections 397 and 482 Cr. P. C. as well as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court Esplanade, Bombay, on 24th April, 1978, directing that a letter of request might be issued to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington (U. S. A.) to get the necessary documents from a bank in America.
2. The present petitioner who is a partner of M/s. Pillman Aircraft Co. is alleged to have a savings account in the Washington Mutual Savings Bank, Seattle, Washington, U. S. A., being account No. 121730. The Central Bureau of Investigation at whose instance the impugned order is made by the Magistrate is investigating into an offence under Sections 120-B, 162 and 163 of the Indian Penal Code against M/s. Pillman Aircraft Co. Bombay, and its partners. According to the investigating agency, the Pillman Aircraft Co. and its partners had entered into an agreement with the Boeing Company, Seattle, U. S. A. every year during the period 1969 to 1976 to work as their consultants in India for promoting the sale of Boeing Aircrafts in India and as per the operative agreements, the accused received compensation on percentage basis in case of some categories of aircrafts and at fixed rate in case of other categories of aircrafts in India and thus huge amounts were accumulated abroad in U. S. dollars during the period 1969 to 1976 which were kept in the foreign bank at Washington. It was stated in the application before the Magistrate that the accused had executed another set of agreements with the Boeing Company under which the Pillman Aircraft Company was to get a fixed annual retainer of a small amount which was brought into India through normal banking channels and the large amount of compensation which is illegally retained outside India is kept in savings account No. 121730 in the Washington Mutual Savings Bank, Seattle, and was disbursed iillegally.
3. According to the C B. I. their investigation has shown that there is documentary evidence about the two sets of agreements and during the period 1969 to 1976 though under the agreements disclosed to the Government authorities in India the accused were to get $ 21,000/- per year as consultancy charges, under the real agreements the accused had earned compensation of 15,00,000/- U. S. dollars against the sale of 747 aircrafts to Air India and 737 aircrafts to Indian Airlines Corporation, out of which amount only fixed annual retainers at the rate of $ 21,000/- per year were repatriated to India during 1969 to 1976. The retention of the amount outside India which, according to the C. B. I., is in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulations and the said amount is suspected to have been used to influence public servants in India by corrupt and illegal means for promoting the sales of Boeing aircrafts to Air India and/or Indian Airlines by foreign companies. With a view to find out the quantum of amount credited from time to time in the Washington Mutual Savings Bank in Account No. 121730 of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (petitioner is accused No. 2) and the mode of withdrawal of those funds and the procedures to withdraw those funds, the C. B. I. wanted to obtain the following documents in connection with savings Account No. 121730 from the Washington Mutual Savings Bank, Seattle :
"1. The application for opening the aforesaid account in the Bank together with specimen signature cards.
2. Certified copies of statements of account in respect of account No. 121730 from its opening up-to-date.
3. Photo copies of all cheques debited and credited to this account, certified by the Bank to be correct photographs.
4. All pay-in-slips and withdrawal slips connected with the above account.
5. All correspondence connected with the above account."
4. While making an application to the Magistrate, the C. B. I. stated that the provisions of S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
