RATILAL BHANJI MITHANI versus ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY & ANR.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 04-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RATILAL BHANJI MITHANI 
v. 
ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY & ANR. 
May 4, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S, BACHAWAT, J. M. SHBLAT, 
V. BHAROAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) 
Constitution ·of India, Arts. 21 and 225-Hlgh Court cance/Ung ball 
in exercise of inherent powers-Wheth1r such powers violative of Art. 
21-0r whether 'law' within the meaning of A.rt. 21. 
The appellant along with others was being tried for an offence under 
s. 120B of the Indian Penal Cede read with s. 167 (81) of the Sea Cus-
toms Act, 1878, and s. S of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. 
Although he was at first released on bail by the Presidency Magistrate, 
the High Court, by an order dated March 6, 1967 in the exercise of its 
inherent powers cancelled the previous bail orders, as it found that the 
appellant was interfering and tampering with certain foreigners 
whom 
the prosecution intended to examine as witnesses. 
The High 
Court, 
however, reserved liberty to the appellant to move the court on or after 
June 26, 1967 for a fresh order of bail as it was contemplated that within 
the time so fixed, the prosecution would examine the foreign witnesses. 
In the appeal to this Court, the appellant challenged the order of the 
High Court on the ground that the inherent powers of the High Court 
were not conferred by any legislation or statute, and !he deprivation of 
the personal liberty of the appellant by an order of the High Court in 
the exercise of its inherent powers was violative of Art. 21 of the Consti-
tution. 
HELD : The High Court has the inherent power 
to 
cancel' bail 
granted to a person 3ccused of a bailable offence. 
This 
jurisdiction 
should be invoked in exceptional cases only when the High Court is 
satisfied that the ends of justice will be defeated unless the accused is 
committed to custodY. 
f928A-B] 
·A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The order of the High Court cancelling the bail and depriving the 
F 
appellant of his personal liberty was according to procedure established 
by law and was not violative of Art. 21. 
[931C] 
The existing powers and jurisdiction of the High Court, including 
its inherent powers, had been confirmed and continued by s. 223 of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, and Art. 225 of the Constitution. When 
the Constitution or any enacted law has embraced and confirmed the 
inherent power and the jurisdiction of the High Court which previously 
G 
existed, that power and jurisdiction has the sanction of an enacted 'law' 
within the meaning of Art. 21. f929H; .931A-B] 
Case law discussed. 
[On the facts the court noted that there had been unnecessary delay 
iu the examination of the foreign witnesses and directed that the appellant 
should be released on bail on June 26, 1967.] 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISD)CTION : 
Crimi.nal Appeal No. 
64 of 1967. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RATILAL v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (Bachawat, J.) 
927 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 3, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Applica-
tion No. 24 of 1967. 
A. K, Sen; S. G. Sheth and/, N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
N. S. Bindra and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J, 
The appellant along with other persons is being 
tried for an offence under Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code 
read with Sec. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Sec. 
5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 194 7. 
The offence 
is bailable. 
The appellant was released on bail under orders of 
Magistrates dated May 11, 1960 and. April 1, 1961,. 
A large 
number of 'Witnesses have been examined but the tnal has not 
yet been concluded. 
By an order dated March 3 I 6, 1967, the 
High, Court of Maharashtra, Bombay, in the exercise of its inhe-
rent jurisdiction cancelled the bail orders and directed him to sur-
render to his bail. From this order, the present appeal has been 
filed by special leave. 
In Talab Haji Hussain v. 
Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar 
and another('), this Court held that a High Court has the inhe-
rent power to cancel a bail granted to a person accused of a bail-
able offence where such an order is necessary to secure the ends 
of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court, and 
this power is preserved by Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. 
On behalf of the appellant it was strenuously argued that this 
case was wrongly decided. 
Having heard full arguments, we find 
no r.eason for departing from our earlier decision. 
In t

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