Back
1990 Supreme(Del) 190
High Court Of Delhi
K.N.AGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 1337 of 1990
Decided On : 07/17/1990
ARUN JAITLEY, D.C.MATHUR, H.S.CHAUDHARY, S.Lal
The court interpreted Sections 415 and 468 IPC and held that the FIR, when read as a whole, made out an offense under Section 468 IPC read with Section 415 IPC. The court found that the petitioner had deceived the Directorate of Enforcement and the Government of India by inducing them to register a case against a politician under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which would not have been done if they had not been deceived. This deception caused damage to the reputation of the Directorate of Enforcement and the Government of India.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 438 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 468 INDIAN PENAL CODE - FORGERY WITH INTENT TO CHEAT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 415 AND 468 IPC - GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CONSIDERATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, was accused of conspiring to fabricate false bank documents to harm the reputation of a politician. The FIR alleged that the petitioner visited the United States and St. Kitts with other accused persons, talked over the phone to confirm action being taken on a request for assistance from the St. Kitts Government, and claimed to be a family friend of a politician. The petitioner argued that the FIR did not allege that he committed forgery with the intent to cheat and that the acts attributed to him did not constitute an offense under Section 468 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the FIR, when read as a whole, made out an offense under Section 468 IPC read with Section 415 IPC. The court found that the petitioner had deceived the Directorate of Enforcement and the Government of India by inducing them to register a case against a politician under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which would not have been done if they had not been deceived. This deception caused damage to the reputation of the Directorate of Enforcement and the Government of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the FIR made out an offense under Section 468 IPC read with Section 415 IPC. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Sections 415 and 468 IPC and held that the FIR, when read as a whole, made out an offense under Section 468 IPC read with Section 415 IPC. The court found that the petitioner had deceived the Directorate of Enforcement and the Government of India by inducing them to register a case against a politician under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which would not have been done if they had not been deceived. This deception caused damage to the reputation of the Directorate of Enforcement and the Government of India. 2. The court held that the petitioner had made out a case for being granted anticipatory bail. The court considered the cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances, including the fact that the petitioner was an old man suffering from various illnesses, and directed that he be released on bail in the event of his arrest.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail on the condition that he furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2 lakhs with one surety of the like amount, report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday for a period of one month, join investigation as and when called upon to do so, and not temper with evidence or contact the witnesses.
( 1 ) BY this application filed under section 438 code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail against apprehended arrest for the various offences alleged to have been committed him in respect of FIR/crime No. 1 (SIG) (S)/90 dated 25th May 1990
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the First Information Report, the date and time of occurrence is "1989 and earlier", the name of the complainant or the informant is "official records, source information and press correspondents. . , and besides the petitioner the accused are (I )Sh. K. L. Verma, Former Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, New Delhi; (2) Sh. A. P. Nandi, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement; New Delhi; (3) Sh. Chandraswamy @ Hem Chand; (4) Mr. Larry Kolb, U. S.- National; (5) Mr. George D. Maclean, Former MD, First Trust Corporation Ltd, now settled in Canada and other public servants and private persons. It is alleged that accused persons have committed various offences but, for the present, this court is to consider only offence under section 468 Indian Penal Code as admittedly all other offences mentioned in the FIR are bailable.
( 3 ) THE First Information Report is a fairly lengthy document. The FIR is a sequel to publication of a news item in some -newspapers alleging that an account No. 29479 with First Trust Corporation Ltd. , St. Kitts had been opened in the name of Sh. Ajay Singh S/o Sh. V. P. Singh in which the later was shown as beneficiary and the visit of Sh. A. P. Nandi to USA and St. Kitts and submission of a report by him on return from the said countries. Reference is made in FIR, inter-alia, to the visit of A. P. Nandi to Miami and New York in U. S. A. and St. Kitts and after return to the submission of his report on 9th 0ctober l989 to Directorate of enforcement with which he enclosed the statements of four persons including Mr. Maclean and other persons mentioned in the FIR. According to his report Nandi stated that it was "confidential clear" that the. account in question was being maintained by Sh. Aj ay Sing with Sh. V. P. Singh as beneficiary. He is said to have added that he had arrived at this conclusion on the basis of statements of four persons and the documents. The FIR records that it is learnt that no such account was opened by Ajay Singh at St. Kitts. The illegal acts/overt facts attributed to the petitioner are :
1. He visited United States alongwith Mr. Chandraswamy and Mr. A. P. Nandi and further visited St. Kitts alongwith Mr. Chandraswamy, Mr. Larry Kolb and Mr. Nandi. 2. He was a party to criminal conspiracy for the purpose of fabricating false bank documents at Stamfort (Connecticut) in the house of Dev Ketu, a disciple of Mr. Chandraswamy. . 3. He talked over phone at Indian High Commission, Port of Spain on 5th October 1989 to confirm whether action was being taken on the FAZ message sent there for seeking assistance of St. Kitts Government in the enquiry. 4. Again on 6th October 1989 in the evening, he telephoned the Indian High Commission at Port-of-Spain at his residence in the aforesaid connection and claimed himself to be a family friend of Sh. Narsimha Rao.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the FIR named accused persons and others were parties to a criminal conspiracy to fabricate false records/evidence which was intended to be used in connection with false and malacious proceedings under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and to harm the reputation of and to cause injury to Sh. V. P. Singh and Sh. Ajay Singh.
( 5 ) I have heard Mr. Mathur who has vehemently canvassed in favour of grant of anticipatory bail and Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Additional Solicitor General who has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In which case to grant anticipatory bail and in which case to refuse it is-a matter of direction of the court. There are no inflexible rules governing the grant or refusal to grant the anticipatory bail. The law on this point is well settled b
