Full Judgment Text
CRL.A. NO. 1486 OF 2004 REPORTABLE
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1486 OF 2003
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
GM, COOPE. BANK DEPOSIT A/C HR.SHA &ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2005
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
which is the Reserve Bank of India in this case.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated
th
20 of December, 2002 whereby a direction has been
issued by the learned Single Judge in an application
for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure made by an accused that depositors who had
made deposits of less than Rs. 10,000/- should have
their deposits released as and when funds were received
by the respondent No. 3 – cooperative bank.
3. In this case, an application for bail was made
CRL.A. NO. 1486 OF 2004 REPORTABLE
2
by some of the accused in Cr. No. 121/2002 of Naranpura
Police Station in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by respondent No. 3, the Ex-Chairman of
the Bank, respondent No. 4. Bail was granted by the
nd
Magistrate vide order dated 22 February, 2002. This
order was challenged by the depositors before the High
Court. The High Court, however, did not cancel the
bail granted to respondent No. 3 but made a
consequential order on 20/12/2002. This order is
reproduced below:-
“At this stage, learned counsel
Shri Prajapati appearing for the
depositors rightly made a grievance that
so far poor depositors are not paid by
the bank out of the amount, which has
been received by the bank. If it is so,
then it is most unfortunate Mr. Munshaw
tried to explain that the said amount is
used by paying salary etc. of the bank
employees. This amount should not have
been used by the bank authorities for any
other purpose except distributing the
same amongst the poor depositors. Mr.
Prajapati for the depositors association
has pointed out that there are more than
75,000 depositors. Out of that, number
of depositors are poor persons who have
invested their life time saving in the
bank. He, therefore, requested the court
that the bank should start paying the
amount to the depositors who have
invested not more than Rs. 10,000/- at
the first instance. There is lot of
substance in what has been submitted by
Mr. Prajapati for the depositors.
Accordingly, the bank should start
distributing the amount, which is so far
recovered by them from the accused under
the interim orders of this Court. On the
CRL.A. NO. 1486 OF 2004 REPORTABLE
3
next date of hearing the bank shall
furnish the details of the money being
paid to the poor depositors, who have
invested not more than Rs. 10,000/- at
the first instance. On the next date of
hearing, all the accused as well as I.O.
And Administrator of the bank shall
personally remain present at 2:15 P.M.
before this Court.”
4. The Reserve Bank of India has challenged the
operative portion of this order as being beyond the
scope of an application under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and as it infringes on several
provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It has
been urged that these facets had been pointed out to
th
the learned Single Judge in an application dated 13
th
January, 2003, which too had been rejected on 7
February, 2003.
5. The respondents before us have been served but
only the accused, respondent No. 3, who has already
been granted bail is before us. The learned counsel
contends that as far as he is concerned, he has nothing
to say in this matter as his bail has been confirmed.
6. We are of the opinion that the far reaching
consequences of the directions of the High Court are
way beyond the scope of an application for bail filed
by an accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
CRL.A. NO. 1486 OF 2004 REPORTABLE
4
Procedure and the High Court, as much as anyone else,
must stay confined to the issues relevant to the matter
before it. It was thus not open to the High Court to
pass orders which could affect the working of Banks all
over the country. It has been pointed out by Mr.
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, the learned senior counsel for
the appellant that it is for this reason that the
Reserve Bank of India had filed these appeals. We,
accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the
th th
orders dated 20 December, 2002 and dated 7 February,
2003.
........................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 12, 2010.