1983 (11) TMI 341 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Use of Inherent Powers to Prevent Abuse; Approvers Confirmed, Trial to Proceed Swiftly u/s 306.

G.K Ralhan Versus The State and Ors

The HC dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., affirming that the inherent powers of the court can be invoked to prevent abuse of process ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.2. Whether Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani can be treated as approvers in both the charge-sheet case and the complaint case.3. Applicability of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. to the complaint case.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was challenged based on the bar incorporated in sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code. The court acknowledged the bar provided in sub-section (3) of Section 397, which prevents a second revision application by the same person. However, it was clarified that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 are not in conflict with the specific powers conferred by the Cr.P.C. and can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye, to illustrate that the inherent powers of the High Court are preserved and can be exercised in exceptional cases. Therefore, the petition was deemed maintainable.2. Whether Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani Can Be Treated as Approvers in Both the Charge-Sheet Case and the Complaint CaseThe court examined whether Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani, who were granted pardon, could be treated as approvers in both the charge-sheet case and the complaint case. It was argued that the two approvers were granted pardon in relation to composite allegations involving offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The court noted that the investigation, application for pardon, and orders granting pardon related to composite offences, including those forming the subject matter of the complaint case. The court rejected the contention that the approvers could only be treated as witnesses in the complaint case, emphasizing that the composite nature of the allegations and the investigation justified their status as approvers in both cases.3. Applicability of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. to the Complaint CaseThe court addressed whether the procedure under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. could be applied to the complaint case. It was argued that since the complaint case involved offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the provisions of Section 306, which allows for the tender of pardon to an accomplice, were applicable. The court referenced judicial precedents to support the view that where some offences are within the terms of Section 306 and others are not, but they arise out of the same transaction, the pardon would cover all offences. The court concluded that Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani, having been granted pardon in relation to composite allegations, could be treated as approvers in the complaint case, and the procedure under Section 306(5) could be followed.Conclusion:The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court held that Kusum Dewan and Mohinder Advani could be treated as approvers in both the charge-sheet case and the complaint case, and the procedure under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. was applicable to the complaint case. The trial of the complaint was directed to proceed with expedition to make up for the time lost due to the proceedings leading to the petition.