LexPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK versus R.L. VAID AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
v.
R.L. VAID AND ORS.
AUGUST 20, 2004
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
Precedent :
Application by accused before trial court for summoning certain
C documents-CBI and Bank contending that documents were privileged
communication-Trial court allowing application-High Court dismissing
bank's petitio11 merely by citing a decision-Held, disposal of cases by
merely placing reliance on a decision is not proper-High Court should
have indicated the reasons and also spelt out as to the applicability of the
D decision to facts of instant case-Evidence Act, 1872-s.124.
The respondents, who were facing trial for offences punishable
under s. 120-B IPC read withs. S(l){d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947, filed an application before the trial court for summoning
certain documents. The CBI and the appellant Bank resisted the
E prayer contending that the documents were privileged communication
in terms ofs.124 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The trial court allowed the
application. The Bank approached the High Court which held that in
the light of the decision in R.K. Jain*, the Bank had no case.
F
In the appeal filed by the Bank it was contended that the High
Court without discussing applicability of the decision in R.K. Jain to
the facts of the instant case should not have dismissed Bank's application.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : l. Disposal of cases by merely placing reliance on a
decision is not proper. It is to be remembered that judicial utterances
are made in the setting of the facts ofa particular case. Circumstantial
flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a difference
between conclusions in two cases. The High Court has merely referred
H to the decision in R.K. Jain* without even indicating as to applicability
692
P.N.B. v. R.L. VAID [PASAYAT, J.]
693
of the said decision and as to how it has any relevance to the facts of A
the case. It would have been proper for the High Court to indicate the
reasons and also to spell out clearly as to the applicability of the
decision to the facts of the case. [695-A-C]
*R.K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SC 1769, referred to. B
2. The order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is
remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The view
expressed by this Court in Kishan Narain 's case** shall also be
considered as it elaborately deals with the question of privilege. It
would be proper to deal with the applicability of the view expressed C
in the said case to the facts of the instant case. [695-D-EJ
**Kishan Narain v. State of Maharashtra, [1974J 3 SCC 368,
referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
917 of 2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2003 of the Punjab and
D
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1413 of 2003.
E
Dhruv Mehta and Mohit Choudhary for the Appellant.
Gaurav Aggarwal for Prashant Kumar, Vishnu Sharma for P.
Parmeswaran for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are facing trial for alleged commission of G
offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short 'the I.P.C.'). read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 194 7 ( in short 'the Act'). The case was registered by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'the CBI'), which is respondent
No. 4 in the present appeal. An application was filed by the accused persons H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A before the Special Judge conducting trial for summoning eight documents,
as were indicated in the application. The learned Special Judge directed
production thereof overruling the objection to the production thereof. It
was the stand of the CBI and the appellant-Bank that the documents were
privileged communication in terms of Section 124 of the Indian E'. idence
B Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') . Originally, CBI had resisted the prayer and
subsequently the appellant-Bank raised similar objection. The Special
Judge was of the view that the production of the letters would not cause
any injury to public interest and it would rather facilitate the court to arrive
at an appropriate decision. It was noted that in such type of action
C proceedings, the court cannot be kept in dark, and in the administration
of justice, the court should have fullest possible access to all relevant
matExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.