9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 again after he had pleaded guilty. This conviction was recorded on 29th May, 1965, After he had undergone this sentence, he was again put in detention under Section 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act. This detention was challenged by him by filing two writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab, and in this Court, but both the writ petitions were dismissed. Then, on 17th January, 1967, a case was filed in the Court of Miss K. Sen Gupta, S.D.M., New Delhi, for a substantive offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, for an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Customs Act and Section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, and an offence under Section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act read with Sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent again pleaded guilty, was convicted on 31st January, 1969, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. In this case, 17 other persons were prosecuted as his co-accused. During the pendency of this case, another case was filed in the Court of Shri N.C. Jain, S.D.M., New Delhi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs in respect of them. It is this order which has been challenged before us in this appeal by special leave. 2.In this case, it was very unfortunate that, when the writ petition was heard by the High Court, the very first confession made by the respondent, which was to a great extent the basis of the various prosecutions, was not placed before the High Court and was not brought to its notice. Obviously there was carelessness on the part of the prosecution in not bringing it to the notice of the High Court. At the same time, the respondent, who had challenged the prosecution, also owed a duty to bring that confession to the notice of the High Court as the burden lay on him to show that the prosecution going on against him was illegal and liable to be quashed; and he had moved the High Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to obtain this relief. In his writ petition, the respondent had offered to produce the copy of the confession for perusal of the Court, but the Court lost sight of this offer and proceeded to pass the order without examining the confession. The importance of this omission lies in the fact that a reading of the confession itself makes it manifest th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent and 17 others were prosecuted. These circumstances were partly explained in a later affidavit of H.K. Kochhar, Assistant Collector of Customs, sworn on 12th May, 1969, and filed in the High Court in reply to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on which the High Court passed the present impugned order. The High Court preferred to attach greater weight to the affidavit of the Under Secretary to Government and did not choose to act at all on the affidavit of H.K. Kochhar, considering that the former affidavit was by a senior officer on behalf of the Government, while the latter affidavit had been sworn by an Assistant Collector of Customs only. In adopting this course, the High Court lost sight of the circumstance that the affidavit of the Under Secretary was filed in January, 1966 when the investigation of the various facts was at a fairly early stage, while Kochhar's affidavit was filed in May, 1969, by which time fuller investigation had been made by the authorities and they had discovered that their first impression that there was one single conspiracy was incorrect. The position has been further clarified before us in the affidavit of the Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd he will not have to face any further trials. 4.We have considered these aspects, but we do not think that this is a fit case where we should uphold the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings which were validly started and which related to an entirely distinct and separate offence of conspiracy apart from the one for which the respondent has already been convicted. The offences for which he is now being tried are of such a nature that may have far-reaching implications, and we do not think that it will be in the public interest that the trial should be given up merely because there has been delay in sending up the case. The case related to a conspiracy and we can very well appreciate that investigation of an offence of conspiracy is necessarily prolonged and requires considerable work by the investigating authorities, so that certain amount of delay is bound to take place in putting the case before the court. In the present case, the matters appear to have been complicated by the fact that, at the earlier stages, the authorities were under the impression that there was one single conspiracy. We are unable to find any material to suggest that the prosecution have delibe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
