9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Quashing of proceedings based on first information report - Passport surrender and bail conditions - Legal requirements for certificate and sanction - Power of High Court under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code Quashing of Proceedings: The appellant sought to quash proceedings based on the first information report, arguing that legal requirements were not met, including the absence of a certificate by the High Commissioner for India and lack of sanction from the Director of Foreign Exchange. The State contended that the investigation was near completion, and the case would soon commence, suggesting that the issue of certificate or sanction could be raised during trial. The High Court determined that it was premature to assess the merits of the case at this stage, and dismissed the application under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Passport Surrender and Bail Conditions: The appellant requested the return of his passport to travel back to England, emphasizing his willingness to provide an undertaking not to leave India until the case's conclusion. Despite complying with previous court orders to surrender the passport and furnish sureties for bail, the appellant attempted to revisit these conditions through section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court clarified that the power to impose restrictions on passport surrender was not confined to sections 496, 497, and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially when dealing with cases under section 561-A. Citing precedents, the court upheld the decision to retain the passport surrender condition as part of bail terms, dismissing the appellant's appeal. Legal Requirements for Certificate and Sanction: The appellant raised concerns about the absence of a certificate from the High Commissioner for India and the Director of Foreign Exchange's sanction for prosecution. The State highlighted that these issues could be addressed during the trial phase and were not determinative at the current investigative stage. The court refrained from delving into the specifics of the case, emphasizing that the investigation process should proceed without interference under the Criminal Procedure Code. Power of High Court under Section 561-A: In evaluating the High Court's jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court referenced previous cases to establish that the High Court could quash proceedings in the absence of legal evidence or if there were impediments to the case's continuation. However, the court clarified that the High Court typically does not assess the reliability of evidence during such applications. Additionally, the High Court does not intervene in ongoing investigations as it could obstruct statutory authorities' powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. Ultimately, the court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the applications under section 561-A, affirming the legality of the proceedings. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, with the court emphasizing the impending commencement of the cases against the appellant and the need for timely progression due to the extended investigative period.
|
