LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BALRAM MIHANI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 2 S.C.R. 209 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BALRAM MIHANI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 891-893 of 2007) FEBRUARY 1, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Chapter VII-A - ss. 105-A to 105-C - Reciprocal arrangement for assistance in certain matters and procedure for attachment and forfeiture of property - Application by Police for initiating proceedings in respect of properties used A B c in commission of offences or acquired from criminal activities D - HELD: Provisions of Chapter VII-A would be applicable only to offences which have international ramifications and not to local offences generally and the properties earned out of such offences. Interpretation of Statutes: E Contextual background - Statement of Object and Reasons - Held: Has to be taken into consideration for arriving at clear interpretation where the language is extremely general and not clear. F Police filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate for initiating proceedings against certain properties belonging to the respondents stated to have bee_n ~!ed in commission of offences ·or acquired from G criminal activities. The application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate. However, the High Court in the petitions filed by the respondents uls 482 Cr.PC, quashed the proceedings holding that the provisions of Chapter 209 H 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A VII of the Code were not applicable to local offences complained of. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. The Court by its order dated 19.1.2010 dismissed the appeal observing that reasons for the order would follow. 8 Giving the reasons for the order dated 19.1.2010, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court has rightly held that the provisions of Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not the ordinary law of land and C would be applicable only to the offences which have international ramifications. Chapter VII-A of the Code has introduced stringent measures for attachment and forfeiture of t,he properties earned by the offences by way of recipr-oC'al arrangement in the contracting countries. D The whole chapter is the specific one relating to the specified offences indicated therein and has nothing to /do with the local offences or the properties earned out of them. [Para 6, 12 and 13] [218-G-H; 218-F-G; 219~A-Bl E Union of India & Anr. v. W.N. Chadha 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 260; Jayalalitha v. State (2002) Crl.L.J. 3026; and Bhinka v. Charan Singh AIR 1959 SC 90 - referred to. 1.2. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Amending Act 40 of 1993 there is a clear cut reference that F the Government of India had signed an agreement with the Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for extending assistance in the investigation and prosecution of crime and the tracing, restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of crime G (including crimes involving currency transfer) and terrorist funds, with a view to check the terroristactivities in India and the United Kingdom. [Para 9]-frf7-A-C] 1.3. In the instant case, the applications filed by the H · Police as also the order passed by the trial court are only STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BALRAM MIHANI 211 & ORS. and only in respect of the offences like gambling and the A offences under l.P .C. which are local. Even the properties are not shown to be connected with crimes mentioned in the Objects and Reasons of the amending Act. Such properties are clearly not included in s.105-C of the Code. (Para 11] [217-G-H] B 1.4. Though the language of s.105-C (1) is extremely general, its being placed in Chapter VII-A cannot be lost sight of. Where the language is extremely general and not clear, the contextual background has to be taken into consideration for arriving at clear interpretation. [Para 11] C [218-A; 218-B-C] 1.5. The plea that sub-section (2) of s.105-B starts with the words "notwithstanding anything contained in this Code" is. of no avail, as the sub-section, when read D in entirety, makes reference to a person who is in "contracting State". Beside, ss.105-B and 105-C, which start with the words "Where a court in India", in their express language indicate that the Chapter was not meant for the general offences and the properties earned E out of those general offences in India. Further, the Court cannot ignore the likely misuse of the provisions
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.