Full Judgment Text
CRL.A. No. of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 REPORTABLE
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2502 OF 2009
[arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 ]
PREM SAGAR GUPTA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant's son was kidnapped for ransom but
was got released by the appellant on the payment of Rs.
20 lakhs. A case was also registered against the
accused under Section 364A/120B of the Indian Penal
Code and they were arrested and interrogated and during
the course of the investigation, the entire ransom
money of Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from them. The
appellant thereafter moved an application under Section
451 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions
Court, Calcutta, that the ransom money which
undoubtedly belonged to him should be released to him.
This application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. A
revision petition was thereafter filed in the High
CRL.A. No. of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 REPORTABLE
2
Court. The High Court allowed the revision petition on
the following terms:-
“Accordingly, application is allowed.
The learned Magistrate asked the I.O. To do
the following:
1. Detailed noting of the number of each
currency note.
2. Taking photographs of each currency
note.
3. Photographs of the currency notes are
to be attested or countersigned by the
complainant and accused.
4. The notes should be kept in bank
locker by the complainant and shall be
produced at the time of trial.
5. Bond of equal amount of Rs. 20 lacs
shall be executed by the complainant.”
3. It has been submitted that some of the
conditions imposed by the High Court particularly
condition Nos. 4 and 5 were onerous in the light of the
fact that the money undoubtedly belonged to the
appellant. We are indeed surprised that a very hyper
technical view has been taken by the High Court in
making the impugned order as the money constitutes the
ransom that had been paid by the appellant to secure
the freedom of his son. To our mind, to ask the
appellant to comply with condition Nos. 4 and 5 would
be extremely harsh and also adding insult to injury.
5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and direct
that condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be complied with
but condition Nos. 4 and 5, are held to be unreasonable
CRL.A. No. of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 REPORTABLE
3
and are quashed. We direct that the the money should
be released within a period of three months from
today. We further direct the Investigating Officer to
ensure compliance with condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3
before payment.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 11, 2009.
CRL.A. No. of 2009 @ SLP(CRL.) No. 5332 of 2009 REPORTABLE
4