ENGINEERING EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL versus USHA ANAND AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 29-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 285 
ENGINEERING EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 
v. 
USHA ANAND AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2007) 
MAY 29, 2013 
[DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
\ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Jurisdiction 
A 
B 
- Scope of -Criminal proceedings ulss.420, 4681471 /PC 
against respondent no. 1 's husband, and three other accused C 
- All accused, without prejudice to their claim, -Oeposited 
money with appellant, a channelising industry under the 
Ministry of Commerce - Case against husband of respondent 
no. 1 stood abated on his death -
Other three accused 
acquitted - After acquittal, they were granted relief of refund 
D 
of the money deposited, by the High Court - Similar claim 
by respondent no. 1 on behalf of her late husband - Allowed 
by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction uls.482 CrPC -
Propriety - Plea of appellant that husband of respondent no. 1 
deposited the amount not in pursuance of any order of court E 
but on his own volition to avoid arrest, and hence same cannot 
be directed to be refunded u/s.482 CrPC - Held: Evidence 
on record make it clear that the money was deposited by the 
husband of respondent no. 1 on his own volition with the 
appellant - Deposition of any sum as a condition of bail and 
F 
a deposit with the Agency on one's own even if to avoid arrest 
would stand on a different footing - The later action has 
nothing to do with the proceedings in the court - s.482 CrPC 
could not have been exercised as the action taken by 
appellant, was absolutely an administrative action and, 
G 
therefore, the same could only be challenged by way of a writ 
petition and not by seeking relief invoking the inherent power 
u/s.482 CrPC - Liberty granted to appellant to approach the 
High Court by way of writ petition - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.420, 4681471. 
285 
H 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
'Y', the husband of 1st respondent, was a merchant 
exporter of automotive components. The Central Bureau 
of Investigation (CBI) registered cases against him for 
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468/471 of IPC. 
Identical cases were registered against his three brothers, 
B namely, 'A', 'S' and 'Su'. 
'Y', without prejudice to his claim, deposited a sum 
of Rs.22 lakhs with the appellant-Engineering Export 
Promotion Council (EEPC), a channelising industry 
under the Ministry of Commerce and requested it to 
C inform the Special Investigation Branch (CBI) not to take 
any measure against him. The other three brothers also 
similarly deposited sum with the said agency. The trial 
continued in different cases against all the four brothers 
and, eventually, 'A', 'S' and 'Su' were acquitted in all the 
D cases by the trial court which extended them the benefit 
of doubt. 'Y' expired before conclusion of the trial and, 
thereforE), the trial stood abated against him. Against the 
judgment of acquittal of the three brothers, CBI preferred 
appeals, which were dismissed and no appeal was 
E preferrE)d assailing the judgment of affirmation of 
acquittal. Thereafter, they claimed refund of the amount 
by filing applications before the trial Judge who allowed 
the same. 
F 
As the amount was not refunded despite the order 
passed by the trial court, one of the brothers filed 
applica(ion before the High Court which passed order 
directing the appellant to refund the amount. Thereafter, 
the 1st respondent filed an identical application before 
G the High Court with a prayer to command the appellant 
to refund the amount of Rs.22 lakhs deposited by her late 
husband, 'Y', which was allowed. 
In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged the 
order of the High Court contending 1) that the husband 
H of 1st respondent had deposited money with the 
ENGINEERING EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL v. 
287 
USHA ANAND 
appellant on his own and it was not in pursuance of the A 
order or command of any court and it had nothing to do 
with the grant of bail; 2) that the High Court fell into grave 
error by applying the doctrine of parity which was 
remotely not applicable; and further 3) that when as a 
condition of bail a sum is deposited, the same is liable to 8 
be released after acquittal but when an amount is 
deposited on one's volition it cannot be directed to be 
refunded under Section 482 CrPC. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. From the order passed by the High Court, 
it is clear that the High Court was exercising its inherent 
powers under Section 482 CrPC. The

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