NARINDERJIT SINGH SAHNI AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 12-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARINDERTIT SINGH SAHNI AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, UMESH C. BANERJEE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 32 and 21-Petition under Article 32-Maintainability.of-
C 
Infraction of Article 21-Accused involved in criminal cases all over the 
country-Bail granted in some cases-However, detained in jail custody in 
view of production warrants in other cases-Held, in such a case petition is 
maintainable as opportunity of being heard of doctrine of natural justice 
warrants fair opportunity-However, factual matrix does not show infraction 
D 
of Article 21-Deprivation of personal liberty of the accused persons is in 
accordance with law. 
E 
F 
G 
Article 32-Judicial Review-Power of-Implicit in the written 
constitution-There is no fetter for such review-However, maintainability of 
petition is an issue de hors the ultimate result in the petition. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
Section 438-Anticipatory bail-Grant of-Accused alleged to have 
cheated millions of depositers-Criminal cases pending against them all over 
the country-Bail granted in some cases but benefit not availed. on account 
of production warrants in other cases-Held, since no infraction of Article 21 
is identified, petition for grant of anticipatory bail not sitstainable. 
Section 205-Exemption from personal appearance-ls the prerogative 
of Magistrate and thus cannot be sought from Supreme Court. 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections l 20B and 420-Cheating-Different finance 
companies alleged to have cheated depositers and criminal cases filed all over 
the country-Held, as parties are different, amount of deposit and also period 
of deposit is d~fferent, each individual deposit agreement is to be treated as 
separate and individual transaction brought by allurement offinance compaliy-
H 
Thus each constitutes separate o.ffence. 
114 
-
N.S. SAHNI v. U.0.1. 
115 
Wonts and Phrases : 
Expression 'Personal liberty'-Meaning of in the context of Article ·21, 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
A 
Petitioners are the finance investment companies; its directors and 
employees. They accepted deposists from large number of people but failed 
B 
to make repayment and numerous cases were filed against them under the 
Penal Code and the negotiable Instruments Act which are pending in different 
States. Petitioners got bail in one case but detained by reason of production 
warrant in other cases and resultantly are languishing in jails, being deprived 
of order of grant of bail. Thus the petitioners contended infraction of Article 
C 
21 of the Constitution. Hence the present writ petitions • 
. The issues involved in these appeals are whether writ petitions are 
maintainable under Article 32 by reason of supposed infraction of Article 21 
and whether order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. ought to be 
made available to the petitioners by reason of the deprivation of the liberty 
D 
without there being any sanction of law in line with blanket order. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HEl1D: 1.1. Any person complalning of infraction of any fundamental 
right guaranteed by the Constitution is at liberty to move this Court but the 
rights that could b~ invoked under Article 32 must ordinarily be the rights 
of the petitioner himself who complains of the infraction of such rights and 
approaches the Court for relief and the proper subject for investigation 
would however be as to the nature of the rights that is stated to have been 
infringed. [143-C-D] 
D.A. V. College, Bhatinda, etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors., [1971] 2 SCC 
262, followed. 
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Guiab Khan & Ors., 
[1997) 11 sec 121, relied on. 
1.2. Incidentally, power of judicial review being implicit in written 
Constitution, question of there being any fetter for such review would not 
arise and specially in the 21st century there ought not to be thwarting of such 
a right nor even any hesitancy in that regard. Maintainability of the writ 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
/. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
t 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
petition is an issue de hors the ultimate result in the petition - presently the 
justice oriented approach and set-up a standard in accordance therewith 
ought to be the guiding factor so far as the law courts are concerned. Refusal 
to entertain cannot be in tune with the present approach and rather acts 
contra. The requirement is a prima f acie satisfactio

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