COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI versus GHULAM SARWAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 24-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 12 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 
v. 
GHULAM SARWAR AND ORS. 
March 24, 1970 
(V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, JJ.] 
Criminal trial-Delay in putting up conspiracy case-Accused praying 
for separation of trial of his case and pleading guilty-Procedure to he 
followed by Court. 
The respondent was a Pakistani 
national 
and \Vas arrested on 8th 
May 1964, and imme<liately after his arrest he made a confession before 
a Magistrate. 
The confession 
disclosed that 
he \Vas involved in 
two 
different and separate conspiracies with 
various 
co-accused. 
But 
the 
customs authorities assun1ed that there was onlv one conspiracy and th:1t 
the respondent had incorrectly shown two sep-arate conspiracies. 
Three 
cases \Vere filed against him charging him with offences under the Regis-
tration of ForeigneN Act, 1939, and Sea Customs Act, 1878, and 
the 
offence of conspiracy and other offences under various enactments. 
He 
\Vas convicted on his plea of guilty and sentenced 
to various tcrm'l ol 
imprisonment. 
He was also detained under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 
After fuller invc~tigation, the respondent was again put up for trial for 
the second conspiracy and for offences under other Acts. The respondent 
moved the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that 
he having hecn convicted for a conspiracy could not be retried for 
the 
5ame offence again. 
He also pleaded various alternatives in the event o'f 
the Court not quashing the proceedings, and one of the pleas was 
that 
proceedings against him should be separated from other co-accused and 
his plea of guilty be accepted. 
The High Court quashed the proceedings. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Jn appeal to this Court, HELD : ( 1) Since the second trial \'<as for 
a different and distinct conspiracy, the High Court's order was not justi· 
fied. [117 DJ 
F 
(2) Since the offences for •vhich the respondent was being tried "ere 
likclv to have far-reaching implications, it ~'as not in the public interest 
that the trial should be given up merely because, he had already ,erved 
various terms of imprisonment, or there has been delay in putting him up 
for trial for the second conspiracy, especially when there was no material 
to suggest that the prosecution deliberately prolonged the investigation or 
G 
delayed bringing up the case beifore Court. 
Further, 
the 
trial for the 
second conspiracy could not have been combined \Vith the earlier one. be-
cause. the two are separate and distinct. [117 D-EJ 
( 3) In the circumstances ho\.V·ever, his alternative plea of separ.1tlng 
his case from the other co-accused should be accepted and the prosecution 
allowed a period of not more than two months for producing the evidence 
so that the court could on a consideration of the evidence. either frame 
H 
a charge or discharge the respondent. 
The contention of the pro~~cution 
that he should be tried along with the others to enable the court to take 
his confession into consideration against the co~accused is not a ground 
.. 
I 
I 
. • 
COLLECTOR v. GHULAM SARWAR (Bhargava, J.) 
11.J 
A 
for joint trial especially when the respondent could be called as a witnes• 
against the other co-accused. [118 Bl 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
207 of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgmen~ and. o~der dated 
September 11, 1969 of the Delhi High Court m Cnmmal Misc. 
(Main) No. 53 of 1969. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
R. Jethamalani, Harjinder Singh, Kumar Mehta, H. K. Puri 
and Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargava, J. 
Respondent No. 1, Ghulam Sarwar (herein-
after referred to as "the respondent"), who is a Pakistani national, 
was arrested on 8th May, 1964 under section 104 of the Customs 
Act, 1962. 
Immediately after his arrest, he made a confession 
before a Magistrate. 
Since then, he has been in custody part of 
the time under section 3(2) (g) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, part 
of the time as a convict in various offences for which he was con, 
victed, and part of the time as an under-trial prisoner. 
Th~ first 
regular case filed against him was under section 5 of the Registra-
tion of Foreigners Act, 1939 in which he was convicted on 29th 
January, 1965 and sentenced to undergo six month's ngorous im-
prisonment after he had pleaded guilty. While he wa• under-
going that sentence, a second case was filed against him for an 
offence under se

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