AMAR CHAND AGARWALLA versus SHANTI BOSE AND ANOTHER ETC.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 22-12-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
119 
AMAR CHAND AGARWALLA 
v. 
SHANTI BOSE AND ANOTHER ETC. 
December 22, 1972 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I, D. DUA AND C, A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 439 and 561A-
Power of High Court to quash charges and proceeding!-Scope of. 
As a result of a judicial enquiry in relation to a complaint by the 
appellant against the four respondents, summons were issued to 
tho 
respondents, aind before the Magistrate, evidence, oral and documentary, 
was adduce<! by the complainant (appellant) in the presence 
of 
the 
accused (respondents). On a consideration of those 
materials, 
the 
Magistrate framed charges against all the four accused under ss. 120 
B/409 I.P.C. and under s. 409, against accused I to 3, ~ September 
1968. Thereafter, the trial proceeded, ai large volume of 
oral 
and 
documentary evidence was let in, and 
all 
that 
remailwd 
was 
the 
examination of two prosecution witnesses 
and a 
court-witness before 
closing the trial. All the prosecution wit:nesses examined till then were 
also cross-examined by the res~dents. At that stage, in March 1969, 
the 4th accused moved the High Court for quashing the 
proceedinp 
and the other accused followed with similar petitions. 
The High Court, in spite of the complainant representing that the 
trial had almost come to a close quashed the charges and proceedings 
on the grounds that, the complainant bad suppressed 
material 
facts, 
that the two prosecution witnesses 
should 
not 
be 
aillowed to be 
examined 'in the circumstances of the case', that the examination of 
the court witness was not necessary as it would only 
prejudice 
the 
accused and under the effect of cross-examin3tion, and that the evidence 
en record ruled out any offence of breach of trust or a conspiracy to 
commit it. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The High Court was in error 
(a) It is not as if the accused had moved the High Court at the 
earliest stage when summons was issued to 
them. 
Nor 
had 
they 
approached the High Court when charges were framed against them. 
If the case of the accused was that the allegations i:I> the 
complaint 
did not constitute the offences complained of or that the complainant 
was to be quashed on any other g\"ound available in law, the accused 
should have approached the High Court at least when too charges were 
framed. 
[186DEJ 
(b) Assuming there was a suppression of material 
facts by 
the 
complainant that was a matter to be considered by the trial 
Court. 
Similarly, whether the evidence on record established that an offence 
of breach of trust or a conspiracy to commit it, had been committed, la 
again a matter for the trial court to come to a conclusion after an 
appraisal of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution 
and 
the 
defence. The High Court was not justified, at that stage, to have em· 
barked upon an appreciation of the evidence. [187 AC] 
( c) The nccused never challenged the order of the trial court regard· 
ing the examination of prosecution witnesses or the court·witness, and 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1973] 3 S.C.R. 
the High Court was not justified in holding that they should not be 
examined, -and hence, the order regarding their 
examination 
should 
stlljll(f. 
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. The Stat• of Maharashtra, [1963] 3 
S.C.R. 415, referred to. 
A 
(d) If the High Court had P"ssed the order quashing the charges 
and proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under s. 561A, 
B 
Cr. P. C. then the exercise of the power by the High Court was not 
justified, because, the Jfresent case does no[ come within the ambit of 
the principles laid dowi:,. by this Court, in R. K. Kapur v. The Stare 
of Punjab, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388. [188 A-C] 
(e) Even assuming that the High Court \\'as .exercising jurisdiction 
under s. 439, Cr. P .C., the present was not a case for interference by 
the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised 
C 
no:rmally, under the section, only in exceptional. cases when there is a 
glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point 
of law and consequently a flagrant mis-carriage of justice. [1880] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
101 to 103 of 1970. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
D 
October 10, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision 
Nos. 238, 289 and 290 of 1969. 
D. Mukherjee and S. Ghosh for the appellants (in all the 
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.