Delhi High Court
State Trading Corporation Of ... vs M/S Global Steel Holding Limited & ... on 19 May, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: May 19, 2015
+ CRL.M.C.2000/2015 & Crl.M.A.Nos.7553-54/2015
STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K.Anand, Mr. Madhu Sudan
Bhayana, Mr. R.N.Yadav, Mr.
Chetan Anand & Ms. Payal Ahuja,
Advocates
versus
M/S GLOBAL STEEL HOLDING LIMITED & ORS.
.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.
Gaurav, Mr. Pankaj Baghla, Ms.
Reha Mitra, Ms. Deepali Dwivedi
& Mr. Tanveer, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above-captioned petition, quashing of order of 12th March,
2015 passed by trial court in proceedings under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought. Vide aforesaid order, trial
court has admitted respondents-accused to bail subject to their furnishing
bail-bonds in the sum of `5 lac each as the offence in question is bailable
Crl.M.C.No.2000/2015 Page 1
one. One of the respondents-accused, who is said to be aged 90 years,
has been granted exemption from personal appearance for the said date
while relying upon medical certificate. It is noted in the impugned order
that the respondent-accused, who is aged 90 years is currently residing in
London.
The grievance of petitioner is that no conditions have been put on
respondents-accused while granting them bail and since respondents-
accused are frequently undertaking foreign travel therefore, they should
be subjected to the condition of obtaining leave of court prior to travelling
abroad and respondent No.3-Pramod Mittal and Respondent No.7-Vinod
Mittal be directed to surrender their passports.
This petition is strongly opposed by learned Senior Counsel for
respondent-accused by submitting that impugned order of 12th March,
2015 suffers from no illegality as while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 436 Cr.P.C., no conditions are required to be put and personal
exemption has been rightly granted to respondent-accused, who is aged
90 years on the strength of the medical certificate. This is seriously
disputed by learned counsel for petitioner, who submits that it is this very
respondent-accused, who had earlier filed an application for exemption
on earlier date and which was declined and so, there was no justification
to grant him exemption from personal appearance on 12th March, 2015. It
was pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that the cheques in
question relate to crores of rupees and the endeavour of respondents-
accused is to delay these proceedings. Attention of this Court was drawn
to order of Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 4935/2014 in
State Trading Corporation v. Uday Pratap Singh & Anr. rendered on 9th
Crl.M.C.No.2000/2015 Page 2
February, 2015 wherein Apex Court had vacated this Court's order
granting exemption from personal appearance to co-accused Uday Pratap
Singh in these proceedings.
While entertaining this petition, operation of the impugned order
was stayed and application for vacation of the stay of the impugned order
has been filed by the respondent-accused. Instead of deciding the
application of respondent-accused, it was deemed appropriate to hear the
main petition itself. Both the sides agreed to finally argue this matter
today. In view thereof, hearing was pre-poned from 30th September, 2015
to today and the date fixed i.e. 30th September, 2015 is cancelled.
After having heard both the sides and on perusal of impugned
order, the Apex Court's order of 9th February, 2015 as well as this Court's
order of 24th February, 2015 in Crl.M.C.No. 2707/2014 titled The State
Trading Corporation v. Global Steel Holding Ltd. Etc., I find that the
exemption from personal appearance granted by this Court in proceedings
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pertaining to
dishonor of cheques running into crores of rupees, Apex Court had
vacated exemption from personal appearance granted to respondents-
accused till framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. However, Apex
Court vide order of 9th February, 2015 had nowhere directed that under
no circumstances application for exemption for a particular date would be
entertained by the trial court. Vide order of 24 th February, 2015 in
Crl.M.C.No.2707/2014 even this Court had clarified that the said
respondent-accused was at liberty to file an application before the trial
court for exemption for a particular date and if the court finds valid
reason then exemption from personal appearance could be granted.
Crl.M.C.No.2000/2015 Page 3
In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order
of 12th May, 2015 granting exemption to respondent-accused, who is aged
90 years of age on the basis of medical certificate as the said exemption
was granted only for the said date i.e. 12th March, 2015. Needless to say
the mandate of the law has to be followed and an accused has to appear
before the Court on each and every date of hearing. There cannot be any
permanent exemption in view of Apex Court order of 9th February, 2014.
However, trial court would be well within its right to grant exemption
from personal appearance to any respondent-accused on particular date
for good reasons. However, trial court shall ensure that granting of
exemption should not delay the proceedings. So far as imposition of
conditions on the grant of bail to respondent-accused is concerned, I find
that Section 436 of Cr.P.C. does not provide for imposition of any such
condition. Petitioner's prayer for direction to respondent to surrender
their passport cannot be accepted in view of dictum of Apex Court in
Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008) 3 SCC 674. The pertinent observations
made in Suresh Nanda (supra) are as under:-
"In our opinion, even the court cannot impound a
passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C. states
that the court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document
or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision
will only enable the court to impound any document or
thing other than a passport. This is because impounding
of a "passport" is provided for in Section 10(3) of the
Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while
Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the
special law prevails over the general law vide
G.P.Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation. This
Crl.M.C.No.2000/2015 Page 4
principle is expressed in the maxim of generalia
specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a
passport cannot be done by the court under Section 104
Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or
thing."
Regarding the need of respondent-accused taking the permission of
the trial court prior to travelling abroad is concerned, it is to be kept in
mind that most of the accused persons are not residing in this Country
and so putting of such a condition is not warranted. However, it is made
clear that even if, it is inconvenient for respondents-accused, still they are
directed to remain present before the trial court on the dates of hearing.
Needless to say, in deserving cases, exemption from personal appearance
can be granted by trial court but it should not result in delaying the
proceedings.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, trial court is directed to
expedite the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and to make all endeavours to conclude it preferably within this
calendar year.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.2000/2015 Page 5
