1992 (3) TMI 366 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Validity of non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner.
3. Applicability of Section 160 Cr.P.C. for requiring the petitioner's attendance.
4. Applicability of Section 73 Cr.P.C. for issuing warrants.
5. Discretion of the Special Judge in requiring attestation of power of attorney.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The Additional Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the High Court cannot interfere with the investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that he was not seeking interference with the investigation but challenging the issuance of non-bailable warrants based on incorrect facts. The court held that while it cannot interfere with the investigation, it can scrutinize the orders of a Magistrate under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to determine the validity of issuing non-bailable warrants.

2. Validity of non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner:
The court examined whether the non-bailable warrants issued on March 14, 1990, and April 25, 1990, were justified. The court noted that these warrants were issued based on the petitioner's Delhi address, despite knowing he resided in Dubai. The court found that the issuance of these warrants was not warranted by the facts of the case and held them to be without jurisdiction.

3. Applicability of Section 160 Cr.P.C. for requiring the petitioner's attendance:
The petitioner argued that the notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were not applicable as he was residing in Dubai. Section 160 Cr.P.C. allows a police officer to require the attendance of a person within the limits of his station or adjoining station. The court agreed that the petitioner, residing in Dubai, was outside the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer, rendering the notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. inapplicable.

4. Applicability of Section 73 Cr.P.C. for issuing warrants:
Section 73 Cr.P.C. allows a Magistrate to issue warrants for the arrest of a person accused of a non-bailable offense and evading arrest. The court found that the petitioner was required only for interrogation and not as an accused evading arrest. Therefore, the conditions for issuing warrants under Section 73 Cr.P.C. were not met. The court referenced the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader v. Union of India, distinguishing it based on the facts of the present case.

5. Discretion of the Special Judge in requiring attestation of power of attorney:
The Special Judge required the power of attorney filed by the petitioner's advocates to be attested by a Notary or the Consulate General of India, Dubai, due to discrepancies in the signatures. The court found no fault in the Special Judge's exercise of discretion, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, and upheld the order.

Conclusion:
The petition was partly allowed. The non-bailable warrants issued on March 14, 1990, and April 25, 1990, were held to be without jurisdiction and thus invalid. The Investigating Officer was free to proceed with the investigation within the bounds of the law. The orders dated June 5, 1990, and June 7, 1990, regarding the attestation of the power of attorney were upheld.