TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (5) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. The offence is bailable. The appellant was released on bail under orders of Magistrates dated May 11, 1960 and April 1, 1961. A large number of witnesses have been examined but the trial has not yet been concluded. By an order dated March 3/6, 1967, the High Court of Maharashtra, Bombay, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cancelled the bail orders and directed him to surrender to his bail. From this order, the present appeal has been filed by special leave. In Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and another([1958 S.C.R. 1226]), this Court held that a High Court has the inhe rent power to cancel a bail granted to a person accused of a bailable offence where such an orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s attempting to abscond, the High Court has the power to cause him to be arrested and to commit him to custody for such period as it thinks fit. This jurisdiction springs from the over-riding inherent powers of the High Court and can be invoked in exceptional cases only when the High Court is satisfied that the ends of justice will be, defeated unless the accused is committed to custody. For the reasons given in Talab Haji Hussain's case([1958] S.C.R. 1226.), we hold that this inherent power of the High Court exists and is preserved by Sec. 561-A of the Code. The person committed to custody under the orders of the High Court cannot ask for his release on bail under sec. 496, but the High Court may by a subsequent order admit him to bail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te which, as defined, includes Parliament and the Legislatures of the States." As explained by four of the learned Judges in A. K. Gapalan's case(1), the expression 'law' in Art. 21 means enacted or Statemade law, and not the general principles of natural _justice. In Pandit M. S. M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and others([1959] Stipp. I S.C.R.8 6. 929,), this Court held that a deprivation of personal liberty of any person by a Legislative Assembly of a State in exercise of its power to punish for its contempt is according to a procedure established by law and does not contravene Art. 21. Art.194(3) of the Constitution provides that "the powers, privileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature of a State, and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs before the Committee of Privileges, such deprivation will be in accordance with procedure established by law and the petitioner cannot complain of the breach, 'I 'Actual or threatened, of his fundamental right under Art. 21." Subba Rao J. in his minority judgment in that case and the Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 2 did not say anything to the contrary an this point. Now the question is whether the inherent power of tile High Court is conferred by or has the sanction of enacted law. From its very inception the High Court has possessed and enjoyed its inherent powers including the power to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court within its jurisdiction and to secure the ends of justice. These powers inherent in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny power to make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in division courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act." The Section enacted that the jurisdiction of the existing High Courts and the powers of the judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice "shall be" the same as immediately before the commencement of Part III of the Act. The statute confirmed and re-vested in the High Court all its existing powers and jurisdiction including its inherent powers. Then came the Constitution. Art. 225 of the Constitution provides : "225. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Court. The power to make such rules is conferred on the High Court by the Constitution. The rules previously in force were continued in force by Article 372 of the Constitution. The order of the High Court canceling the bail and depriving the appellant of his personal liberty is according to procedure established by law and is not violative of Art. 21. The High Court cancelled the previous bail orders, as it found that the appellant was intimidating and tampering with certain German citizens whom the prosecution intended to examine as witnesses. This finding is challenged by the appellant. Normally, it is not the practice of this Court to re-examine findings of fact in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Having heard fu....