Dismissed

Suri Prem Kumar v. The STate rep.by Central Buerue of Investigation

Telangana HC5 Jun 2009WP/10921/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the issuance of Red Corner Notices against petitioners residing in the USA. The Court held that the notices were valid consequential actions to valid Non-Bailable Warrants, quashing prior applications to recall warrants, and found no violation of natural justice or fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Suri Prem Kumar Vs The STate rep.by Central… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10921 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Suri Prem Kumar S/o.Late Balakrishna Now residing at 10275,Parkwood Dr.#1, Cpertino California (CA) USA,(Rep.by GPA Sri.M.S.Prabhakar S/o.M.B.S.Purushotham, aged 41 years Vikram puri colony,Secunderabad) 2 Suri.Gunarajan S/o.Ramakrishna Now residing at 3728, RENOIR Terrace, Chantilly, Virgenia,USA

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

The State rep.by Central Bureau of Investigation Bank Securities & Fauds Cell, Bangalore

¶10

.....RESPONDENT

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondent authority of the State in showing the petitioners as absconding in the chargesheet in RC6(E)97/CBI/BS &FC/BLR dated 27.12.1997 resulting in issuance of the Red corner Notices against the petitioners through the INTERPOLE as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the procedure contemplated under Chapter VI of the Criminal Procedure code and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the sane and direct the respondents to facilitate the appearance of the petitioners and grant such other relief as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. KASAJAGANMOHAN REDDY

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent: T.NIRANJAN REDDY,SPL P.P FOR CBI

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.10921 OF 2009

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in showing the petitioners as absconding in the charge-sheet in RC6(E)/97/CBI/BS&FC/BLR, dated 27.12.1997 resulting in issuance of the Red Corner Notices against the petitioners through the Interpol as arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to the procedure contemplated under Chapter VI of the Criminal Procedure Code and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶20

On a compliant made by State Bank of India, C & I Division, Secunderabad, a crime was registered by the respondent in RC6(E)/97/CBI/BS&FC/BLR, dated 27.12.1997 against the petitioners along with 18 others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1968. Pursuant thereto, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad and so far as the petitioners herein are concerned the case was numbered as C.C.No.22 of 2003.

¶21

The learned Special Judge for CBI Cases by order dated 03.09.2003 issued the Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against the petitioners and since the petitioners are staying in United States of America (USA), Red Corner Notices were issued through the Interpol. At that stage, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1210 & 1211 of 2009 in C.C.No.22 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases under Section 70 (2) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to recall the nonbailable warrants pleading that they were not aware of the proceedings

¶22

initiated by the CBI. They also sought permission to surrender before the Court stating that they were ready to face the trial. However the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad disbelieved the plea of the petitioners that they were not aware of the proceedings pending against them and accordingly dismissed the petitions to recall the non-bailable warrants. Aggrieved by the said orders, dated 22.05.2009, the petitioners herein filed Criminal Petition Nos.3439 & 3440 of 2009 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 28.05.2009 dismissed the Criminal Petition Nos.3439 and 3440 of 2009 thereby confirming the orders of the learned Special Judge.

¶23

Thereafter, the present Writ Petition came to be filed contending inter alia that issuance of Red Corner Notices without resorting to service of notices on the petitioners was violative of the principles of natural justice affecting their right to life apart from being contrary to the procedure contemplated under Chapter VI of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also contended that having shown the addresses of the petitioners in the charge-sheet, the respondent ought to have taken steps to serve the summons on them instead of getting NBWs issued straightaway followed by the Red Corner Notices.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even where the person against whom a warrant has been issued is absconding, as per Section 82 under Chapter VI of Criminal Procedure Code it is mandatory to publish a written proclamation and thereafter under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. the movable or immovable property belonging to the proclaimed person should be attached. It is contended that without following the said procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code, NBWs ought not to have been issued against the petitioners.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that this is a case where the petitioners left for USA to avoid the proceedings pursuant to the complaint lodged by the S.B.I.,

¶26

and therefore Red Corner Notices were rightly issued through the Interpol consequent to NBWs to ensure their appearance.

¶27

A perusal of the charge-sheet which has been placed before this Court shows that the petitioners were shown as Accused Nos.5 and 6 and they were reportedly staying in USA. As per Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code, whenever cognizance of an offence is taken by the Court and the Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings and the case appears to be a warrant case, a warrant may be issued for causing accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before the Court. No other provision could be pointed out by the petitioners which mandates issuance of summons in the first instance. Hence the allegation made by the petitioners that there are laches on the part of the respondent in following the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code is unfounded.

¶28

It is also relevant to note that the orders passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases in Crl.M.P.Nos.1210 & 1211 of 2009 in C.C.No.22 of 2003, dated 22.05.2009 dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners to recall the NBWs was already affirmed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3439 and 3440 of 2009, dated 28.05.2009. The issuance of Red Corner Notices through the Interpol is only a consequential action to the NBWs and since the NBWs are found to be valid and this Court has already declined to recall the said NBWs, the Red Corner Notices cannot be held to be bad on any ground whatsoever. The contention now sought to be raised in the present writ petition that the issuance of Red Corner Notices without resorting to the service of notices on the petitioners is illegal is apparently an after-thought to get over the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3439 & 3440 of 2009, dated 28.05.2009. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the present writ petition.

¶29

However, the learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that once the passports of the petitioners are stamped and

¶30

Visas are cancelled on the basis of the Red Corner Notices the petitioners can never join their families who are settled in USA and that they will loose their livelihood, contended that the impugned action would amount to violation of the petitioners’ right to life. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to undertake to surrender before the Special Court for CBI Cases and stay in the country till the disposal of the criminal cases and that they will not evade process of law. While rejecting the very same submission, this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3439 & 3440 of 2009, observed as under :

¶31

“Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners finally contends that any action taken against the petitioners, on the basis of the Redcorner notices and extradition proceedings, is likely to have adverse impact on the future of the petitioners and in the circumstances, the petitioners may be permitted to surrender before the trial court by recalling the NBWs. As already referred, the conduct of the petitioners would show that it is not a case for showing any indulgence. Further it is also necessary that action taken shall act as deterrent for such kind of offenders that abscond for years together, by going out of the country and hamper the process of justice and make the State to spend huge amount of money and time for procuring their presence.”

¶32

In the light of the above said order passed by this Court, it is not open to the petitioners to come forward with the very same submission.

¶33

Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶34

_______________ G. ROHINI, J.

¶35

Dt. 05.06.2009 gbs

Suri Prem Kumar v. The STate rep.by Central Buerue of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suri Prem Kumar v. The STate rep.by Central Buerue of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sathamma, Vs The Commissioner of Labour

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, Vs The Regional Deputy Director

B.Muralidhar, Vs The Director of School Education, Government of

Smt.Krishna Kumari Vs The Commissioner Greater Municipal Corporation of

M/s. Dachepalli Publishers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Service Station Vs M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.