Brij Bhushan Singal vs Central Bureau of Investigation

H. S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

The petitioner Brij Bhushan Singal has moved this petition for release of his passport so that he can go abroad in connection with his business affairs. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the ChairmancumManaging Director of Bhushan Steel Strips Limited, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad (UP), which is a public limited company with its registered office at Delhi. As the said company intended setting up another Cold Rolling Plant at the same place which would manufacture the widest range of Cold Rolled Steel Sheets in the country with the latest technology, a proposal for selecting a foreign collaborator had been mooted so that this technology could be obtained. It is also the case of the petitioner that financial assistance had been sought for the two plants from the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd; and the Industrial Development Bank of India and the said assistance had in principle been cleared. The case of the petitioner further is that he had earlier planned to visit Japan, Korea, Europe and other places with effect from 22nd July, 1994, but in view of the order dated 12th July, 1994 (Annexure P4) the said programme had been postponed as the Special Judge who was seized of the case, had declined to order the release of the passport to the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

Mr. Handa, learned counsel for the CBI, in response to the notice issued has urged that vide order dated 14th May, 1994 (Annexure P1), the Special Judge while granting bail to the petitioner had imposed certain conditions on him and one of the conditions was that the passport of the accused would stand impounded so that the petitioner and his coaccused could not leave the country during the pendency of the case. Mr. Handa has urged that under the garb of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ''Code'') the review of the order passed by the Special Judge could not be made and that the High Court was debarred from interfering with the order of the Special Judge by virtue of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find that the petition deserves to succeed.

It has been pointed out by Mr. R. S. Surjewala, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the averments made in the petition that the petitioner has undertaken in para 9 of the petition to return to the country and join investigation within ten days should a notice be served on his authorised representative Shri R. P. Goel, VicePresident, Bhushan Industries Ltd. Chandigarh. He has also urged that the apprehension of the respondent that the petitioner would not be available for investigation as and when required, is not founded on reality as despite the fact that the petitioner was released on bail on 14th May, 1994 he has been summoned by the CBI only once for the purpose of investigation. Be that as it may this apprehension, to my mind, stands allayed as the petitioner through his counsel undertakes to appear before the CBI on two days before he proceeds abroad. The petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police CBI on 8th and 12th September, 1994, at 10 a.m. for interrogation. Mr. Surjewala has further stated on instructions from his client that he undertakes to return to India within a period of four weeks from the date of departure and it is made explicitly clear that no application for extention of this period will be entertained by this Court for any reason whatsoever.

It has been pointed out that while allowing bail to the petitioner on 14th May, 1994, vide Annexure P1, the petitioner had been required to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge. Mr. Surjewala undertakes that before the petitioner proceeds abroad, he will furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Chandigarh.

Mr. Handa''s argument that the present proceedings are not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in Ajit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Report 366 : 1982(1) Crl.L.J. 1215 is unacceptable and it does not apply to the facts of the present case. Section 362 of the Code provides that once a judgment has been signed it shall not be reviewed or altered except to correct a clerical error. This section does not take away or limit the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code which specifically provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Admittedly, it is not open to the Special Judge to modify or review his order except for the limited reasons given in Section 362 of the Code, but this embargo cannot be applied on the High Court exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code.

In view of the position explained above, the petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, to return the passport of the petitioner forthwith. It is also directed, as has been urged by Mr. Handa, that before the petitioner leaves India he shall furnish to S.P.,C.B.I. Chandigarh a detailed itinerary of his proposed visit abroad. The petitioner will also file an affidavit before the Special Judge, prior to his departure, stating that he has fully complied with the directions/undertakings given in this order.