KAPOOR CHAND MAGANLAL CHANDERIA versus DELHI STATE (ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 16-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KAPOOR CHAND MAGANLAL CHANDER!A 
v. 
DELHI STATE (ADMINISTRATION) 
April 16, 1985 
[AP. SEN AND E.S. VCNKATARAMIAH, JJ.J 
Indian Penal Code, Ss. f20 ·& 511. 
Ajfidavit-Subsri1utiot1 of word 'per11u1nentl;;• for '1hree Years'-Prosecution 
la:u1ched-P/ea of accused....-A/ffdavit used, under 'honest belief'-Pro5ecution 
whether 11aUd and perrnissible. 
The appellant who ·wa<; a British citiz,~:-1 of Indian ~rigin, came on a 
temporary visit to India fl)r a period ·or three years in July 1966 as he had a 
family holding in Messrs· Atu\ !)rug House Li1nltcd: to survey the bussiness 
situation and to m::ike a decision for his future stay in the country. Along with 
him he brought a Mercedes Benz car as part of 4is personal bazgage, free 
of duty, underthe Tripe-trique convention under which he was entitled to 
retain the car for a m1ximum period of one year. 
After his arrival in India 
he was appointed as Managing Director of the Company and this required his 
pr~sencc in the country for quite some time and therefore the appellant appli~d 
to the J0int Chief Controller of lmp0rts & D:<port:> for ·the is'>ue of an import 
licence co 
kc~p th>! s·1id cJr for m(Jre ttia1 ')ne year, but that application of his 
... 
.... _was rejected by the Chbf Controlbr on the gr.Ju:-id that he had not come to 
iv' India for permanent settlement, On the appellant informing the Chief Con-
'•. 
trolter t'1at he had reconsidered his decic;ion and decided to stay in India 
permanently, the Chief Controller required him ·to submit amongst other 
documents an affidavit conter-signed either by the High Cofnmission for India in 
Tanzania or the Indian Embassy at Nairobi in Kenya or a Notary Public. 
It appears that the appellant before his arrival in India-had with him an 
affidavit sworn before the Third Security, High Commission for India at 
Dar-es-Salaa1n stating that he was taking up appointment as a Director of 
Messrs Atul Drug house Limted and it. would therefore necessitate his presence 
in India for·a period of three years at least. When the Chief Controller asked 
the appellant to produce.an affidavit along with the application for grant of an 
import licence, what he did was to score out the words 'for three years' and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
E 
D 
F 
G 
JI 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] j s.c.Ii.. 
added in ink the word 'permanently'. 
The Chief Controller rejected the 
application on the ground that the affidavit submitted by him was a forged 
document. Admittedly, the Mercedes Benz car had been repatriated out of 
India by the appeUant within the 
period provided u,1der the Tripe-tdque 
convention. 
The appellant was prosecuted by the Central BurcJu of Investigation in 
the Court of the Additional Chie[,Prcsidency Magistrate, Bombay for commission 
of an alleged offence punishable under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on the 
allegation that he had made a false declaration before the Assistant Collector 
of Customs, Bombay that he was a tourist and had coin~ to Bombay to stay 
for a period of six months knowing full weII that he had sworn an affidavit 
before the Third Secretary, High Commission for India at Dar-es-Salaam that 
he would remain in India for a period of three years. Tbe aforesaid affidavit was 
put in -evidence b:Y the prosecution. The Customs authorites led no evidence in 
c;upport of tht cha fee. Tht learned Chief Presidency Magistrate after a trial last- ' 
ing over four years acquitted the appellant on the ground that the prosecution 
h::id failed to e~tablish the charge beyond all reason"'able doubt. l le further held 
that thd appellant wa'> faJ5ely implicated at the instance of one 3hah, the other 
Managing Director, in a struggle to gain control over.the cOmpany. · 
The Delhi Special 
Police Establishment had in the meanwhile filed a 
challan against the appellant in the Court of 
th~ Judicial Magi~trate (First 
Class), Delhi on February 10, 
1971 for 
commision of an alleged offenc 
punishable under ss. 420 and 471 read with s.467 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The learned Magistrate framed charges [against 
the appellant under ss.4].0, 
467 and 471 read with s . .467 of the Indian Penal Code directing him to stand 
trial in a Court Of Sessions. 
The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court 
however on a reference by the Addition!l Sessions Jndge, Delhi under s.438 of 
the Code of Cri1ninal Proc.::dure, 1898 quai;hed the charge farmed against the 
appellant under ss.467 and 47 l read with s.467 o

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