9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts made by the learned counsel for the parties, CRL.M.C. 7278/2023 is taken up for adjudication first. CRL.M.C. 7278/2023 2. The petitioner seeks following reliefs:- "A. Declare the arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India in relation to FIR No. 224/2023 dated 17.08.2023 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road, Delhi Police; B. Declare and set aside the Remand Order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Patiala House Court as null and void as the same being passed in complete violation of all constitutional mandates including failure to consult and to be defended by legal practitioner of his choice during the Remand Proceedings, being violative of Petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. C. Direct immediate release of the Petitioner from custody in FIR No. 224/2023 dated 17.08.2023 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road, Delhi Police." 3. Facts as culled out from the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows:- "ix. On 03.10.2023 during the wee hours of the morning i.e. from 6:30 AM onwards, officers of Specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e multiple requests. The Petitioner and his counsel were informed that he would be produced for the purposes of Remand the next day i.e. on 04.10.2023 during court hours. xii. On 04.10.2023, without any prior notice, again during the wee hours of morning, the Petitioner was abruptly woken up and taken to the residential premises of the Ld. Special Judge at around 66:30 AM. At the residence of the Ld. Special Judge, the Public Prosecutor, and a Legal Aid Counsel ("LAC")/remand counsel were already present, and the counsel for the Petitioner, whose identity was known to the IO, was not informed. It is submitted that no documents authorising the LAC to appear on his behalf were executed by the Petitioner. Neither the Petitioner's counsel nor any of his family members were informed about the aforesaid proceedings and were consequently not present during the course of the hearing which commenced upon arrival of the Petitioner and the police authorities at the said residence. The entire remand proceedings took place in absence of Petitioner's counsel and family members. During the hearing, the Petitioner expected that his family or counsel would have been informed and will pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and seven days police custody remand has been granted vide the Impugned Order. The order was passed without hearing the Petitioner's Counsel and without consideration of the aforesaid documents. It is submitted that despite the illegal arrest of the Petitioner in the said FIR and the unlawful manner in which the Remand Proceedings were conducted due to the actions of the Respondent, the Ld. Special Judge on 04.10.2023, without application of judicial mind, particularly on the issue of non-compliance with Article 22, erroneously proceeded to remand the Petitioner herein to police custody for seven days. xvii. It is also pertinent to mention that the order records that it has been signed at 6:00 AM which is not/cannot be the case as no remand order was passed at least till 7 AM when the Petitioner's family member was called to join the remand proceedings. Further, shockingly, the order also records the presence of the Petitioner's Counsel through telephone, though he was contacted only after 7 AM and thus could not have been present at 6 AM. xviii. It is submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid Impugned Order dated 04.10.2023 would reveal that apart from the Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid case was in the context of the provisions of sections 19(1), 19(2) and 45 of The Prevention Of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA") read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, however, the language of section 19 of PMLA being pari materia with section 43B of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "UAPA"), the ratio would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The emphasis was on the following paragraphs:- "32. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 of the Act of 2002 enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle. Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorized officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though the ED claims that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji (supra). Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorized officer in terms of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtions in the document and furnish the edited copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person, so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation. 39. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra), which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that the ED's Investigating Officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under this Chapter is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or place, may authorise any officer subordinate to him to arrest such a person or search such building, conveyance or place whether by day or by night or himself arrest such a person or search a such building, conveyance or place. 43B. Procedure of arrest, seizure, etc.- (1) Any officer arresting a person under section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) Every person arrested and article seized under section 43A shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer-incharge of the nearest police station. (3) The authority or officer to whom any person or article is forwarded under sub-section (2) shall, with all convenient dispatch, take such measures as may be necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Code. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 ARTICLE 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.- (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of arrest and as such, the same cannot be construed to go beyond 24 hours of such arrest. Moreover, communication of the grounds of arrest are zealously protected by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and thus, it is incumbent upon Courts of Law, in particular, Constitutional Courts to construe the provisions and balance them in such a manner so as to further the constitutional guarantee envisaged under the Constitution. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the words "as soon as may be" ought to be construed as not beyond 24 hours from the time of such arrest. Another facet of the issue would be the indelible rights of the arrestee/detainee to obtain or seek bail which would be impacted in case such grounds of arrest are not communicated within a reasonable period and the same cannot be countenanced. ii. Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 also mandates that the arrestee has the right to be communicated the grounds of arrest forthwith. This is manifest by the use of the word "shall" in that provision. In the opinion of this Court, the use of the word "shall" in section 50 has to be read as mandatory in nature since the same would otherwise violate the rights of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shes to be represented by counsel, the Magistrate should allow time for counsel to appear and argue the matter before him. He may grant a temporary remand in such circumstances until arguments have been heard. (ii) Right of accused to access to counsel and friends-The Punjab Government have issued the following instruction in regard to the right of accused to access to counsel and friends :- An accused person should not be removed to a place which is either inaccessible or unknown to his friends or counsel. Information regarding his place of confinement should at all times be given to his friends on their application, and the prisoner himself should be informed that he is entitled to have the assistance of counsel and to communicate with his relations and friends." Rule 12 of Part B of Chapter 11 of DHC Rules, thus, also reiterates the rights of the arrestee to be represented by an advocate at the time of remand proceedings. v. Now coming to the provisions of The Prevention Of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 in context whereof, the judgement in Pankaj Bansal (supra) was delivered by the Supreme Court. A perusal of provisions of section 19(1) makes it apparent that the authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nctions in the language of the statutes on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court was considering the effect of section 19(1) & (2) of PMLA and as to the right of an arrestee to be furnished with the written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest. The Apex Court had observed, on facts, that the authorities under PMLA were providing information of grounds of arrest in varied methods, in that, at some places, the grounds of arrest were informed orally and in some places, they were being permitted to be read or were read out and in others, written grounds of arrest were being furnished. After considering the effect of section 19(1) & (2) of PMLA and coming to the conclusion that it was incumbent upon the authorities to record the reasons for arrest in writing as per section 19(1), the Supreme Court held that there was no reason why the authorities could not provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee. The Supreme Court had also reached the said conclusion keeping in view the power to initiate action under section 62 of PMLA against the officer concerned, in case of noncompliance of the provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action, annexed to the resolution S-17/2 was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its seventeenth special session on the twentythird day of February, 1990; AND WHEREAS the Political Declaration adopted by the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly held on 8th to 10th June, 1998 calls upon the Member States to adopt national money-laundering legislation and programme; AND WHEREAS it is considered necessary to implement the aforesaid resolution and the Declaration." PREAMBLE OF UAPA "An Act to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations 1[, and for dealing with terrorist activities,] and for matters connected therewith. 2[WHEREAS the Security Council of the United Nations in its 4385th meeting adopted Resolution 1373 (2001) on 28th September, 2001, under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations requiring all the States to take measures to combat international terrorism; AND WH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Pankaj Bansal (supra) while relying upon V. Senthil Balaji (supra) which was purely in relation to the provisions of PMLA cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the cases arising under UAPA. 11. This of course, would not mean that there is no constitutional or statutory obligation enjoined upon the respondent to provide information of grounds of arrest as soon as may be, within 24 hours of such arrest. 12. Thus considering the aforesaid analysis of the law as also the judgements of the Supreme Court, it is held that the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds, in written, are not mandated by the UAPA. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra), and also considering the stringent provisions of UAPA, it would be advisable that the respondent, henceforth, provide grounds of arrest in writing, though after redacting what in the opinion of the respondent would constitute "sensitive material". This too would obviate, as held by the Supreme Court, any such challenge to the arrest as made in the present case. 13. It is a sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions/transactions which came into existence before the approval of the 1991 Notification." It is clear from the above law that the factual situation as also the legal proposition presented before the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) was entirely distinct from that in the present case inasmuch as the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with and interpreting the provisions of section 19(1) & (2) read with section 45 of the PMLA which, as observed above by this Court are not pari materia with the provisions of section 43A & 43B of UAPA and as such, cannot be made applicable to the present case. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the issue (a) is answered accordingly. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PEITIONER: - 14. Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appear on behalf of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner challenges the arrest on the basis that grounds of arrest in written were not conveyed to the petitioner either at the time of arrest or even till date. The petitioner also challenges the order of remand dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge. 15. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel seek to challenge the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate release of the petitioner. 19. So far as the challenge to the remand order is concerned, learned Senior Counsel submit that the same suffers from the following fatal defects:- 19.1 That the petitioner was deprived of having the benefit of a counsel of his choosing at the time when the remand application was being considered, which is violative of not only Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Rule 12 of Part B of Chapter 11, apart from the other relevant rules of DHC Rules. 19.2 That the remand order was passed without hearing the objections of the counsel for the petitioner. 19.3 That the remand order was already passed at 06:00 A.M. on 04.10.2023 as noted by the learned Special Judge in the remand order at the place where the signature was appended. Thus, the so called opportunity afforded to the petitioner to be defended by the counsel of his choice was a mere formality since the copy of the remand application was sent by the IO to the counsel for the petitioner, objections to which was sent around 8 A.M. which was directed to be forwarded to the concerned Naib Court and was done accordingly at 8:12 A.M., while the remand order was already passed at 6:00 A.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 04.10.2023 directing remand of the petitioners to police custody was in accordance with the law, rules and procedures? 21.1 Insofar as the issue regarding arrest of the petitioner is concerned, learned SG referred to the allegations broadly leveled against the petitioner. 21.2 According to learned SG, the offences leveled against the petitioner are in respect of allegations regarding stability and integrity of the country and as such are very serious offences affecting the national security of the entire country. 21.3 Learned SG also submits that the email exchanges between the petitioner and other entities which have been analysed till now indicate a deliberate attempt to show the State of Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as "disputed territories". So much so that the words used for Arunachal Pradesh in particular are "Northern Border of India" which according to learned SG is generally used as a Chinese propaganda. 21.4 Learned SG also submitted that the emails allegedly also contained physical map of India to show certain portions as "disputed territories". 21.5 Overall, the offences alleged against the petitioner for which they were arrested, according to l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory or constitutional mandate of the manner in which grounds of arrest have to be communicated, the compliance under Article 22(1) and section 43B of UAPA were duly effected as per law. Learned SG also submits that, in any case, the grounds of arrest were virtually mentioned in the application seeking remand itself which was served upon the counsel for the petitioner within 24 hours of his arrest. 21.10 While referring to the provisions of section 19(1) & (2) of PMLA, learned SG submits that the written grounds of arrest are predicated on the reason of such belief of the designated officer which are to be sent to the Adjudicating Authority before any such arrest is effected. According to learned SG, the reasons are not far to see since the provisions of section 62 of PMLA prescribe stringent punishment against the officers in case of non-compliance or non-adherence to the mandate under section 19(1) & (2) of PMLA. Learned SG submits that the punishment is prescribed against the officer who, without reasons recorded in writing, detains or searches or arrests any person as per Section 62 of PMLA. It is for this reason that the furnishing of written grounds of arrest are made ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efinition contained in Black's Law Dictionary. 21.14 That so far the ratio laid down in In Re Madhu Limaye (supra) is concerned, learned SG submits the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that, admittedly the grounds of arrest were never furnished to the petitioners at all, whereas in the present case, the same were duly informed to the petitioner at the time of arrest. To substantiate the above argument, learned SG relied upon Para 1 and particularly Para 9 of the judgement in Re Madhu Limaye (supra). 22. So far as the issue no (ii) in regard to the question of remand is concerned, learned SG made the following submissions:- 22.1 On instructions, learned SG submits that the time of 6:00 A.M. as entered in the remand order, pertains to the time when the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge and not the time when the remand order was passed and as such, the order is in accordance with law and procedures prescribed. 22.2 So far as the allegation of interpolation is concerned, learned SG submits that such insinuation against the judicial officer without any supporting affidavit or evidence is in poor taste. He further submits that the words pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the remand dated 04.10.2023 is concerned, it is indicative of the time when the remand order was passed and not the time when the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge. For this, he draws attention to Rule 12(a) of Part B of Chapter 11 of DHC Rules, to submit that the said rule mandates that the Magistrate enters the time when the said remand order is passed and does not even remotely refer to the time when the petitioner is produced. As such, the remand order having been passed at 6:00 A.M., vitiates the order of remand itself. 24.5 Learned Senior Counsel categorically submits that even on facts, not a single penny was received by the petitioner from any source in China and thus, the entire bogey of the prosecution's case is based on irrelevant factors. 24.6 Additionally, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel again referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in In Re Madhu Limaye (supra) particularly to para 14, to submit that the violation of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution would entail immediate release of the petitioner. To the same extent, learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the judgment of V. Senthil Balaji (supra) to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same and requested that he be permitted to reach the residence of learned Special Judge and take part in the remand proceedings physically. 29. The petitioner admits that the remand application was received by his counsel through WhatsApp whereupon the counsel responded that the petitioner would be filing an application for opposing the remand of the petitioner which was sent around 8 A.M. on 04.10.2023 on the IO's phone. Upon the direction of the IO, the said applications were provided to the Naib Court around 8:12 A.M. 30. It is then contended that shockingly, the petitioner's counsel was informed that the impugned order was already passed remanding the petitioner to 7 days police custody. It is also further contended that permission was obtained from the learned Special Judge by the counsel to meet the petitioner on 04.10.2023, and had met his counsel on the same evening when he informed his counsel about the events that transpired during the remand proceedings. In the same breath, petitioner also contended that the counsel for the petitioner who wished to appear physically to oppose the remand application had to join the remand proceedings through telephone call on such sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no averment to state that the petitioner or his counsel had objected to such arrest on the ground of not having been informed of the grounds of his arrest. It is intriguing that the petitioner admits to have met his counsel in the evening hours of 04.10.2023 also, albeit, after seeking permission from the learned Special Judge for such meeting, yet, there is no averment on record to demonstrate as to what effective steps were taken by the counsel for the petitioner even after that. This petition was filed on 06.10.2023, almost 3 days after the date of arrest and 2 days after the remand proceedings and there is no explanation forthcoming on that count. 35. What is even more intriguing is the fact that the petitioner contends that the copy of the FIR was furnished to him only after an application making such request was filed before the learned Special Judge who allowed the same on 05.10.2023, yet, there is not a single whisper as to what transpired in respect of the application raising objections against the remand stated to have been filed on 04.10.2023. At this juncture, it would be relevant to extract Para 11 of the application on behalf of the petitioner opposing the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to also consider as to where the Constitutional Courts are to lean, in such circumstances. On this aspect, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ayya @ Ayub vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (1989) 1 SCC 374 needs to be appreciated. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:- "13. Personal liberty, is by every reckoning, the greatest of human freedoms and the laws of preventive detention are strictly construed and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is strictly insisted upon by the courts. The law on the matter did not start on a clean slate. The power of courts against the harsh incongruities and unpredictabilities of preventive detention is not merely "a page of history" but a whole volume. The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in society, without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right to personal liberty, would lose all their meaning are the true justifications for the laws of preventive detention. The pressures of the day in regard to the imperatives of the security of the State and of public order might, it is true, require the sacrifice of the personal liberty of individuals. Laws that provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition filed by the petitioner commencing from Para 15 of the petition and are germane to the present dispute, are as follows:- "15. It is respectfully submitted that an FIR bearing No. 224/ 2023 was apparently registered on 17.08.2023 against, inter alia, the Petitioner under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, and 22 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1956, (hereinafter the "UAPA") and Sections 153A and 129B of the IPC, at the Police Station, Lodhi Road, Special Cell, Delhi. The registration of the said FIR was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner until his subsequent arrest. 16. On 03.10.2023, at around 6:30 AM, around 10-15 police officials belonging to different branches, came to the house of the Petitioner. They did not provide any intimation as to why they were present, and merely informed that it is in relation to UAPA. The police officials questioned the Petitioner until around 3 PM at his house, and thereafter he was taken to P.S. Lodhi Road and subsequently arrested by the investigating agency. They also seized the phone, laptop, hard disk, and pen drives belonging to the Petitioner but did not provide any seizure memo regarding the same. 17. Pertinently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent in the application, but deferred its hearing to 05.10.2023. 23. Thereafter, the counsel for the Petitioner has obtained a copy of the application for remand filed by the Respondent through the counsel of the co-accused." CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 43. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner adopts the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 7278/2023 and addresses the following arguments on merits:- 43.1 It is submitted that the petitioner is 56 years old and is suffering from a permanent physical disability to the tune of 59% on account of post-polio residual paralysis of both lower extremities as described in the disability certificate duly annexed with the present petition. It is further submitted that presently, the Petitioner only performs a limited administrative role, and has no involvement in financial decision making of PPK or any decisions regarding its journalistic content. 43.2 It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that earlier, he was being summoned and had duly appeared before the concerned authorities on several occasions but never had any apprehension, nor had moved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and therefore is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for immediate release. 44. Per Contra, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent submits that his arguments in CRL.M.C. 7278/2023 on the issues of law and facts may be taken into consideration alongwith the contents of the counter affidavit filed in present case, while adjudicating the present petition. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT 45. Keeping in view the fact that this Court in CRL.M.C. 7278/2023 titled "Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State NCT of Delhi" has already held that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) is not applicable to the facts and the law obtaining in that petition, the challenge to the arrest of the present petitioner on the grounds of non furnishing of grounds of arrest are, similarly, held to be untenable and is accordingly rejected. 46. The issue on challenge to the impugned order of remand as to whether the same was passed at 6:00 A.M. or subsequently has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of the co-arrestee, and as such is held not to be tenable sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he factual score of the case in hand frescoes a scenario and reflects the mindset of the first respondent which would justifiably invite the statement "court is not a laboratory where children come to play". The action of the respondent/accused depicts the attitude where one calculatedly conceives the concept that he is entitled to play a game of chess in a court of law and the propriety, expected norms from a litigant and the abhorrence of courts to the issues of suppression of facts can comfortably be kept at bay. Such a proclivity appears to have weighed uppermost in his mind on the base that he can play in aid of technicalities to his own advantage and the law, in its essential substance, and justice, with its divine attributes, can unceremoniously be buried in the grave........................" K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 "38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
