S. GUIN & OTHERS versus GRINDLAYS BANK LTD.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 11-12-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
818 
S, GUIN & OTHERS 
v. 
GRINDLAYS BANK LTD, 
DECEk"JlER 11, 1985 
[E.S, VENI<ATARAl11Ah MD R.B. MISRA, JJ,] 
Indian Penal Code and Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Prose-
cution - Trial - Acquittal - Appeal disposed of after long delay 
quashing acquittal order - Re-trial orriered - whether justified. 
Criminal· Frocedure C.ode -
S.482 -
Inherent powers - Exer-
cise of. 
The appellants were prosecuted under s, 341 Indian Penal 
Code and under s,36AD of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, on a 
complaint filed by the Operation Manager of the reapondent-Ba."lk 
in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It ~.,.. alleged 
that the appellants had without reasonable catJSe obstructed the 
officers of the &..nk from lawfully entering the premises of the 
branch of the llanl<. and had obstructed the transact1ons of normal 
business. After trial the appellants were acquitted. 
The respondent-Bank filed an appeal against the judgment of 
acquittal before the High Court, which was disposed of after 
nearly six years. The High Court set aside the judgment of 
acquittal and 
remanded the case for re-trial for offences 
punishable under s, 341 read with s.34 or s. 149 Indian Penal 
Code. 
The appellants appealed to this Court against the judgment 
of the High Court ordering re-trial. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HEID: 1, The judgment of the High Court is set aside and 
the order of acquittal p;iSSed by the ~letropolitan Magistrate is 
restored without eA-pressing any opinion on the issues of fact and 
law, [821 F] 
2, wbatever might have been the error committed by the 
Magistrate, it was not just mid proper for the High Court to have 
remanded the case for fresh trial, when the order of the 
acquittal had been passed nearly six years before the judgment of 
the High Court. [ 820 D-£] 
S. GUIN v. GRINDLAYS BANK [VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 
819 
3. The pendency of the Criminal Appeal for six years before 
the High Court is itself a regrettable feature of this case. The 
order directing re-trial hss resulted in serious prejudice to the 
appellants. Having regard to the nature of the acts alleged to 
hsve been committed by the appellants this was a case in which 
the High Court should hsve directed the dropping of the 
proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under s.482 
Criminal Procedure Code even if it came to the conclusion that 
the acquittal was wrong. A fresh trial nearly seven years aftel: 
the alleged incident is bound to result in harassment and abuse 
of judicial process. [820 E-G] 
s. Veerabadran Cbettiar v. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker & Ors., 
(1959] s.c.R. 1211, relied upon. 
CRihINAL AFPELLA'.IE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal No.848 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19,12.1984 of the 
Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. No. 315 of 1978. 
D.N. Mukharjee and P.K. Chakravorty for the Appellants. 
U.R. Lalit, V.N. Roura and Ashok Grover for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VEliKATAl!AHIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed by 
the appellants against the judgment and order dated December 19, 
1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1978 on the file of the 
Calcutta liigh Court setting . aside the judgment of acquittal 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
passed in C-3064 of 1977 on the file of the Metropolitan 
F 
Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta. 
This appeal arises out of a complaint filed before the 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by one Manindra Narayan 
Choudhury, Operation Manager of the Grindlays Bank Ltd. against 
the twelve appellants, referred to above, for offences punishable 
G 
under section 341, Indian Penal Code and section 36AD of the 
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 said to have been committed by them 
on October 31, 1977. 1he complaint alleged that the appellants 
had without reasonable cause obstructed the officers of the Bank, 
particularly Shri. G. V~idya . from lawfully entering the premises 
of the branch of the Bank at 41, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta and 
had obstructed the transaction "of normal business at the said 
H 
820 
SUP~£ COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R. 
A 
branch. It was also alleged that they had thereby committed the 
offence pllllishable under· section 147, Indian Penal Code. The 
prosecution further alleged that all of them were constructively 
liable for the offences said to have been committed by them under 
section 34, Indian Penal Code. It was urged that these acts had 
been committed by the appellants pursuant to a call of strike 
B 
given 

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