LexM/S. B.FINE ART AUCTIONEERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus C.B.I. & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 563 M/S. B.FINE ART AUCTIONEERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. V. C.B.I. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1235-123.7 of 2007) JANUARY 25, 2011 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, AND . SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950 ;· Articles 226 and 136- Jurisdiction under- Two paintings A B c seized by AS./. - F.l.R. registered by CBI for offences punishable u/s 120-B /PC and uls 25 read with s.3 of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, and charge-sheet filed - Writ petition before High Court seeking to quash the FIR and the charfje-sheet-Held : After Iegistration of FIR, CBI made. D detailed investigation in· the matter and also filed charge-sheet -Trial court having taken .cognizance o; offences has framed · charges against al! concerned - High court"rightly ·refused to · exercise its discretion u.nder Article 226 .:.on fpcts and in the circumstances, it is not possible at this stage to quash the FIR E and the Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Artie/(! 136 -Trial court would proceed to consider ·as to . whether the paintings in question are antiquities as· alleged by prosecution -Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972-ss. 3 and 25 -Penal Code, 1860 -s. 120-B F . Two paintings auctioned by the appellant company and purchased by tWo foreign nationals were seized by Archaelogical Survey of India, as it found the same to be antique in nature. A complaint was made to the CBI, which prima facie found the commission of offence u/s · G 3 punishable u/s · 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, ·and. registered an FIR on 29.1.2004 for offences punishable u/s .120-B IPC and s.25(1) read with s.3 of the Act, and after investigation filed charge- H 563 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A sheet on 28.4.2004 against the appellants and the two foreign nationals. Thereafter the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 16598 of 2004 in the High Court challenging the report of the Director General, ASI and confiscation of the said two paintings under the Customs Act. In the B writ petition neither the CBI was made a party nor was the FIR/charge sheet challenged. The writ petition was disposed of by a consent order dated 24.3.2005 directing the competent authority to pass a fresh order. Again Writ Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 2103-05 of 2005 were filed seeking to c quash the FIR mainly on the ground that the basis of the FIR, i.e. the earlier report of the ASI had been rendered redundant in view of the decision of the Division of the High Court made on 24.3.2005. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the auctioneers filed the 0 appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: · 1.1 It is pertinent to note that in the instant writ E petition, the relief prayed for is to quash the FIR and not the order passed by the trial Court refusing to discharge the appellants from the criminal case filed by the CBI. The writ petition is mainly based on the ground that the basis of the FIR i.e. the earlier report of Archaeological .Survey F of India has been rendered redundant in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 24.3.2005. There is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the appellants as to why they did not implead the CBI in Writ Petition (C) No. 16598 ~ G of 2004 and challenge the FIR though they were aware of the same. [Paras 7, 8, 10] [568-G-H; 569-B, E] 1.2 It cannot be said that the basis of the FIR does not survive in view of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 16598 of 2004. The High Court H + B.FINE ART AUCTIONEERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. 565 C.B.I. & ANR. mainly observed that in view of the consen~us arrived at A between the parties thereto, it will not be necessary for the parties to give effect to the earlier report and "if a new report is passed, the earlier report will not be given effect to". The earlier report has not been set aside by the High Court and obviously to continue its operation, a new 8 order is to be made by the Director General, ASI which has not so far been passed. At any rate, all these pleas may be advanced, if at all, available to the appellants, in the pending criminal case. The observation made by the High Court that it will not be necessary for the parties to C give effect to the earlier report binds only the parties to the proceedings and, admittedly, the CBI has not been impleaded as party respondent in that w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.