RAMANLAL BHOGILAL SHAH AND ANOTHER versus D. K. GUHA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 24-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMANLAL BHOGILAL SHAH AND ANOTHER 
A 
v. 
D. K. GUHA AND OTHERS 
January 24, 1973 
{S. M. SIKRI, C. J., A. N, RAY, D. G. PALEKAR, M. H. BEG AND 
S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.J 
B 
Constitution of India, Art. 20(3)-Whether accused mentioned in an 
F.J.R. is bound to appear before Enforcement officer ·to give evidence In 
connection with the same offence. 
The point of law being same in both the writ petitions, the facts of 
writ petition No. 164 of 1972 are as follows:-
The p,etiti<>i>er was the General Manager of United Comm. 
Ban~ 
till 
January 
17, 
1968 
when 
he became its Chainmn and whole-
time Director and after nationalisation of the bank, he was appointed 
·Custodian thereof. 
In 1966, the 
United 
Comm. 
Bank 
had 
booked 
a 
forward 
.exch-.inge contract for Htndustan Motors for £ 9,32,617 at 
th<! 
rate 
-0f Is. 529/32d. per rupee. 
Thereafter, the rupee was devalued and on 
May 24, 1971 the petitioner was served with summons under s. 19-F 
of tju, Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1947 to give evidence in 
an enquiry held by respondent No. 1 into certain offences under 
the 
Foreign Exchange Act. The petitioner was examined on June 3, · 16 
.and 17, 1971. 
According to the petitioner, the entire examination ~ these 
days 
related to the booking by the bank of 
the 
said 
forward 
exchange 
,contract. 
On August 31, 1971, the petitioner was arrested under s. 19B ·of 
the Foreign Exchange Act. Sub-s. 
1 of S . 19B of the Act provides 
that "if any officer of Enforcement .... has reason to believe that any 
person in India etc., has been guilty of an offo.nce punishable under the 
Foreign Exchange Act, he may arl'est such person and shall. as soon 
.as may be, inform him of the ground of such arrest." Sub.sec. (2) p~ 
vides that every person arrested under sub section ( 1) shall, without 
necessa'ry delay, be take,tl to a Magistrate. Sub-s. (3) empowers 
the 
-0fficer concerned to release an arrested person on bail and he has the 
same powers and as that of an O/c of a police station. 
The grounds, 
-served on the petitioner, for the offence under s. 4(2), 
and 
uinder 
s. 22 of the Act punishable under s. 23, are elaborate. 
Paras 31 to 40 
of the grounds of arrest are inter alia, :-conversion of pound sterling 
not at the prescribed rate, false information· fur,oished to the ·Reserve 
Bank in contravention of Sec. -22 of the Act etc. 
[The question arose whether after these grounds had been served 
<>n the petitioner, it ciluld be said that he was a person accused of 
an off-e within Art. 20(3) of the Constitution]. 
Th,e petitioner was later produced before 
the 
Chief 
PresideQCy 
Magistrate who released him on bail with a direction that he 
should 
.contact the investigating officer from time to time. 
Thereafter, an F. I. R. was recorded under s. 154 Cr .P .C. 
by 
the• 
D.S. P., C. B. I., New O,,lhi and an order was obtained 
from 
the 
438 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
u 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAMANLAL V, D. K, GUHA (Sikri, C./.) 
439 
Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta permitting the 
il>vestigation 
to 
be made under s.155(2). Cr. P.C .. The offences alleged in the F.I.R. 
are s.120B read with s.420 I.P.C. and 
under 
s.4(2) 
read 
with 
•· 23(1) (b) of the Exchange Act. 
The names and addreases of the 
accused were given as tlie Management and 
other 
o111cers 
of 
the 
Unit~d Commercial Bllll!k and the Management and otlloers of Hindustan 
Motors Ltd. 
On April 17, 1972 another summons was issued to the 
petitioner 
under s. 19F of the Exchange Act to appear before the 
Enfdroement 
Directorate and to give evidence regarding the transaction of Exchange 
Contract booked from Hilndustan Motors Ltd. 
After objecting to appear before the Enforcement Directorate 
as . 
Witness the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court. 
It was contended by the petitioner that after 
the Enforcement officer 
had ~xamined the petition~r and put his CO!llClusions in the grounds 
of 
afrest, the petitioner was definitely a "person accused of 
an 
offence" 
within the meaning of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India and 
at 
any rate, the petitioner was accused of an offence when the F .. I. R, 
was recerded and therefore. the summons dt. 
April 17, 
1972 
was 
illegal. 
Allowin~ the petition, 
. HELD : (i) It is w~ll settled that with the lodging of a First Informa-
ti01' .Report a person is accused of an offence Within the meaning of 
Art .. 20(3). [445E-Fl 
. Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [1969] 2

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