M. R. DHAWAN versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION & RAJA PRATAP BHANU PRAKASH SINGH

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 13-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
·G 
H 
488 
M. R. DHAWAN 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION & RAJA PRATAP BHANU 
PRAKASH SINGH 
March 13, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Interference by Supreme Court in 
the di.Jcretionary powers of High Court. 
Criminal Procedure Code (Act 5) 1898- S. 437 Rerisional Powers of the 
High Court. 
' 
Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973 Section 484. Scope of. 
A complaint filed by respondent Pratap Bhanu Praka5h Singh alleging that 
the appellant to whom he has entrusted the 27000 shares purchased by him 
from Rohtas· Industries against a loan of Rs. 1.82 lacs advances by the latter, 
has committed a breach of trust of the amount covered by the shares by 
!"lelling them against his express directions, ,.vas inquired into the trial magistrate 
and was dis1nissed later on 28-10-71. The revision filed before the Sessions Judge 
Delhi failed. 
In the further revision, the High Court set aside the order of dis-
charge and directed that the appellant be committed to the Court of Sessions. 
D·ism.issing the appeal by special ]eave, the Court 
HELD : 
1. It is not for the Supreme Court in appeal by special leave to 
go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the material before the 
magistrate 
which may afford a justification for passing an order of discharge. Under sec-
tion 213, sub-clause (2) of the Crl. Procedure Code, 1898, a magistrate can 
discharge the accused if he finds that there are no sufficient grounds for com-
mitting the accused. 
[490 B-D] 
2. Under section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, the revisional 
Court in hearing a revision petition against an order of discharge passed by 
the magistrate may direct a commitment without any inquiry at all or he 
may direct a fresh inquiry. There are two courses open to the revisional 
Cou1t : ( 1) either to set aside the order of discharge and direct a fresh inquiry 
to be made under Section 436 in which case, the inquiry will automatically 
revive or (2) that instead of directing any fresh inquiry pass an order commit-
ting the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions. 
An order of the second 
category amounts to an order of commitmeint and there h; no necessity of any 
further inquiry at all. 
[491 E-F, H, 492 Al 
3. The :first part of Section 484 claer1y excludeS the application of 1973 code 
to any appeal, application, trial, inquiry etc. pending at the time when the 
1973 Code comes into force. 
The proviso to section 484 (1)(2) carves out 
an exception to the general rule contained in Section 484(2) (a) .a.nd provides 
that where a commitment iiriquiry is pending at the commencement of 
the 
1973 Code, it is to be governed by the 1973 Code and not by 1898 Code. 
In the instant case, the ff,jgh Court has not passed any order to the effect 
that the commitment inquiry was to be revived, but has in absolutely dear 
;;ind unequivocal terms ordered, "that.. the respondent 5hall stand committed 
to the Court of Se!sions u/s 409." Since by virtue of the High Court the 
magistrate had no control or siesin of the case at all, the question af any 
inquiry pending before him does not arise. [ 491 H, C, E. 492 B-C] 
' 
( 
• 
• 
, 
I 
• 
_.. 
• 
.... 
DHAVAN v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (Fazal Ali, !.) 
489 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 343 
A 
of 1977. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt. 
21-10-75 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 118 of 
1973). 
A. K. Sen & A. K. Nag for the Appellant. 
R. N, Sachthey & S. P. Nayar for Respondent No. 1. 
V. Prabha and S. P. Nayar for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 21st October, 1975 by 
which the High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate discharging 
the appellant and directed his commitment to the Court of Session. 
The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the 
High Court and that of the trial Court and it is not necessary for us 
to repeat the same all over again. It will be enough to say that the 
complainant Pratap Bhanu Prakash Singh purchased 27,000 shares of 
Rohtas Industries which were entrusted to the appellant against a loan 
of Rs. 1.82 lacs advanced by the appellant. Accordingly, the alleg-
ation was made in the complaint that the appellant committed a breach 
of trust of the amount covered by the shares by selling
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.