Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bhandari and Tek Chand JJ.
A.L.Mehra
Versus
State
Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1956,
Decided On : JUNE 25, 1957
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 337(3) - Approver - Detention in custody - Interpretation - Scope - Inherent powers of the Court - Abuse of process - Bail.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved several petitions arising from the Budget Leakage Case, where certain Government Officers were accused of unauthorized disclosure of budget proposals. One of the accused, Mehra, was granted a pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on condition of making a full disclosure of the circumstances. The other accused, Kothari, Chadha, and More, were charged under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 120-B of the Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Mehra was not an approver for the purposes of the case under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, as the pardon granted to him was only applicable to the offenses for which he was initially charged. The Court also held that the proceedings in the lower court were trial proceedings and not inquiry proceedings, and that the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case against the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether Mehra was an approver for the purposes of the case under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, and whether he could be detained in custody until the termination of the trial under Section 337(3) of the CrPC. 2. Whether the proceedings in the lower court were inquiry proceedings or trial proceedings. 3. Whether the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 337(3) of the CrPC and held that it imposes a statutory obligation on the Court to detain an approver in custody until the termination of the trial only in respect of the offenses for which the pardon was granted. Since Mehra was not an approver for the purposes of the case under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, he could not be detained in custody under Section 337(3). 2. The Court held that the proceedings in the lower court were trial proceedings and not inquiry proceedings, as the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor was under Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act, which requires a trial by a Magistrate. 3. The Court held that the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case against the accused, as the overt acts constituting the charges were committed in Delhi and the accused were found within the precincts of the Courts at Delhi.
Final Decision: The Court directed that Mehra be released on bail on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Delhi. The Court also ordered that the case against the other accused be transferred to the Court of Session under Section 526(1)(e)(iv) of the CrPC, if the Government made a formal application in this behalf.
Bhandari, J.
1. These several petitions arise out of the case which is known popularly as the Budget Leakage-Case.
2. On the 9th March, 1956 a report was received at the Police Station that certain Government Officers had made an unauthorised disclosure of Union Governments budget proposals for the year 1956-57 to some unauthorised persons. The Police registered a case under Sections 165A, 120B of the Penal Code, Section 5 of the Prevention off Corruption Act and Section 5 of the Official Secrects Act. and apprehended a number of persons including F, X. Jacobs, General Foreman of the Rashtrapati Bhawan Printing Press, D P. Chadha, a reskieiit of Delhi, A. L. Mehra, Sales Manager of Mercury Paints and Varnishes, Bombay, N. L. More, a millowner of Bombay and H. G. L, Kothari, a resident o[ Bombay. On the 23rd March, 1956, Mr. D. D. Sharma, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi, tendered a pardon to Mehra under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every person concerned. With the exception oi the approver who was granted a pardon all the other prisoners were released on bail.
3. The prisoners appeared before the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act on a number of hearings but were informed on each occasion that the Police had not completed the investigation and that no proceedings could he taken. On the 23rd June, 1956 the Public Prosecutor informed the Court that the investigation of the case was over and that he would file a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate on or before the 7th July, 1956. In view of this statement the learned Special judge adjourned the matter before him sine die and ordered the prisoners to appear before the Court by which they may be thereafter summoned.
4. On the 7th July, Mr. M. L. Nanda, Senior Superintendent of Police, Delhi, filed a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Delhi. This was not a complaint under Sections 165A and 120-B of the Penal Code or Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of which pardon was granted to Mehra but a complaint under Section 13 (3) of the Official Secrets Act. He requested the District Magistrate to try the four prisoners mentioned above under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act and 120-B of the Penal Code. The District Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of Mr. Shafiq Ahmad, Additional District Magistrate Delhi.
5. The prisoners submitted a number of petitions when they appeared before the Additional District Magistrate on the 23rd July, 1956 Mehara stated that he was granted a pardon only in respect of the offences under Sections 165-A, 120-B of the Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he could not be regarded as an approver in the case under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act and that he was entitled to be released on bail. More and Kothari objected to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi to enquire into the charges brought against them as the overt acts constituting the charges were committed at Bombay and not at Delhi. All the prisoners claimed that they were entitled to copies of documents prepared under Section 173 of the Code or Criminal Procedure, for although technically and formally the Court had taken cognizance of the case on a complaint as required by Section 13 (3) of the Official Secrets Act, the case was in substance and effect based on a police report. After a careful consideration of the arguments that were addressed to him the learned Additional District Magistrate held as follows :
(1) A. L. Mehra is an approver not only for the purposes of the case in respect of which pardon was tendered to him but also for the purposes of the case under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act and cannot as such be set at liberty in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 337 of the C
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
