Back
High Court Of Delhi
O.K.RALHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 11/15/1983
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 306 - APPROVAL OF ACCOMPLICE - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 306(5) - COMMITMENT TO SESSIONS COURT - PROCEDURE - SECTION 397(2) - REVISIONAL JURISDICTION - BAR - INHERENT POWER OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 482 - EXERCISE - CONDITIONS - SECTION 397(3) - REVISION - SECOND APPLICATION - MAINTAINABILITY - SECTION 244 - WARRANT CASE - PROCEDURE - SECTION 337 - PARDON - GRANT - CONDITIONS - SECTION 339 - PARDON - GRANT - CONDITIONS - SECTION 5 - IMPORT AND EXPORT (CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - PUNISHMENT - SECTION 120-B - INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONSPIRACY - PUNISHMENT - SECTION 420 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - CHEATING - PUNISHMENT - SECTION 468 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - FORGERY - PUNISHMENT - SECTION 471 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - USING FORGED DOCUMENT AS GENUINE - PUNISHMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Gopal Krishan Ralhan, was granted pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in relation to offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. The pardon was granted in connection with a charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging that the petitioner and others had conspired to obtain import licenses by fraud and forgery and had committed offences of fraud, forgery, and use of forged documents as genuine. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, alleging that the petitioner and others had conspired to misutilise the goods imported against the import licenses and had cheated the officers of Bombay Customs by getting the goods released dishonestly and fraudulently by using forged licenses as genuine. The petitioner challenged the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, directing that the two approvers, Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani, be examined as Approvers and the complaint case be committed to the Sessions Court under Section 306(5) of the CrPC. The petitioner contended that the approvers could not be treated as Approvers in relation to the complaint case as the offences involved in it were punishable with a maximum of two years and that the procedure of Section 244 of the CrPC should have been followed.
Finding of the Court:
The Delhi High Court held that the approvers, Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani, could be treated as Approvers in relation to both the charge sheet case and the complaint case as the pardon granted to them was in respect of both sets of offences, i.e., under the IPC and under the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. The court further held that the procedure of Section 306(5) of the CrPC could be followed in the complaint case as the approvers satisfied the initial test of being Approvers qua the allegations made in the complaint case. However, the court clarified that whether or not the procedure of Section 306(5) of the CrPC would be followed would depend on the statement that the approvers chose to make.
Issues: 1. Whether the approvers, Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani, could be treated as Approvers in relation to the complaint case as the offences involved in it were punishable with a maximum of two years? 2. Whether the procedure of Section 244 of the CrPC should have been followed in the complaint case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The grant of pardon to the approvers was in respect of both sets of offences, i.e., under the IPC and under the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. Therefore, the approvers could be treated as Approvers in relation to both the charge sheet case and the complaint case. 2. The procedure of Section 306(5) of the CrPC could be followed in the complaint case as the approvers satisfied the initial test of being Approvers qua the allegations made in the complaint case.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS. petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi Upholding that of the Chief. Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that Kusum Dewan and Mohinder. Adyani,who were granted pardon, were Approvers not only in respect of the charge-sheet for offences undet sections 120-B Indian Penal Code read with sections 420 IPC. , 420 DPC 467/468 and 471 Indian Penal Code but also in the complaint filed under section 120 Indian Penal Code read with 5 of the Imports and Export Control Act, 1947, Section 420 IPC/4681pc 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act 1947 and that on that account, the complaint case be committed to Sessions, after the said Approvers had been examined, in accordance with the prosedure laid down in Section 306 (5) of the Code.
( 2 ) THE petition has been filed in the following circumstances. The report of the Controller of Imports and Exports, dated May 22, 1974, addressed to the Central Bureau of Investigation, disclosed that Anita Industries, Faridabad had been granted 12 licences during the years 1972-73 and that the Collector of Customs, Bombay had reported that the firm Imported seemless stainless pipes for manufacture of Hipoderamic Needles and these were of sizes not required for manufacture of hipoderamic needles. It was further pointed out by the Collector that the "enduse" indicated in the licences had been deleted by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta. It was further reported that in the correspondence that ensued Deputy Collector of Customs informed the Controller that enquiries revealed that the firm was no longer in existence and that a show cause notice for cancellation of these licences was issued to the firm on the ground that the firm had obtained these licences by fraud and mis-representation. It was fufther revealed that the deletion of the "enduse" on the licences were forged by some unknown person. The C. B. I, was accordingly requested to take up investigation. On receipt of this report the C. B. I, registered a case under section 120b Indian Penal Code read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code. 420 Indian Penal Code. , 467 Indian Penal Code. 471 Indian Penal Code. and Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act 1947, being R. C. 13/1 and E/74-Delhi. Subsequent, on a report from the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Revenues Intelligence, dated September 28,1974, addressed to the Central Bureau of Investigation against the management of Anita Industries, Faridabad, Since Industires, Ballabgarh and Ruby Industries, Faridabad, another case under sections 120 B IPC read with 420 IPC, 420 Indian Penal Code 367 Indian Penal Code 468 Indian Penal Code 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act 1947, being R. C. 20/74-FS-11, was registered on November 16, 1964. This report repeated the allegations made in the earlier report against the management of Anita Industries and referred to a number of other instances of the same nature involving Simco Industries. It was pointed out that during the course of inquiries a similarly of modus operandi adopted by Anita Industries and Simco Industries was noticed. It was further revealed that the owner of the two firms was the same person and that he was also having another concern known as Ruby Industries which was also more in existence. It was also revealed that all the three units had cumulatively effected imports of over Rs. 45 lakhs or so during the last three years and the main brain behind the racket appeared to be one G. K. Ralhan. It was also pointed out that as a result of reference by the Bombay Customs House, the import and export authorities had "since cancelled 12 licences of the face value of Rs. 201akhs standing in the name of M/s. Anita Industries Faridabad under Clause 9-A of the Import Control Order 1955 on the ground that the same were obtained by frau
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
