{"id":122576,"date":"1991-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991"},"modified":"2016-07-19T12:39:55","modified_gmt":"2016-07-19T07:09:55","slug":"mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1346, \t\t 1991 SCR (1) 712<\/div>\n
Author: S Pandian<\/div>\n
Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAN LAL SHAMLAL SONI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/02\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1346\t\t  1991 SCR  (1) 712\n 1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 271 JT 1991 (3)\t 17\n 1991 SCALE  (1)401\n\n\nACT:\n     Code    of\t  Criminal   Procedure\t 1973-Section\t 311\n(Corresponding to section 540 of the old code)-Summoning  of\nperson\tas  witness-Recall  or re-examine  of  such  person-\nJuridiction of Court-To be dictated by exigency of situation\nand fair play.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Appellant's  business  and\t residential  premises\twere\nraided\tby the Customs Department as a result  whereof\tgold\ningots\twith  foreign marks, gold ornaments, silver  bricks,\ncoins  and  a cash of Rs.79,000 was seized.   The  Assistant\nCollector of Customs filed two separate complaints  relating\nto  the\t said  incident against\t the  appellant\t before\t the\nJudicial  magistrate,  one for violating the  provisions  of\nCustoms Act, 1962 and the other under the Gold Control\tAct,\n1968.\tIn  the trial, after the close of evidence  by\tboth\nsides, prosecution as also defence, arguments were  advanced\non behalf of the accused appellant.  The prosecution at that\nstage before commencing its arguments filed two applications\nin  both  the  cases,  under Section 540  of  the  Old\tCode\n(corresponding\tto section 311 of the new  Code)  requesting\nthe  trial  court to recall one witness\t viz.,\tthe  Seizing\nofficer,  and  issue  summons  to  two\tmore  witnesses\t for\nexamination  either  as prosecution witnesses  or  as  court\nwitnesses.    The   trial  magistrate  rejected\t  both\t the\napplication  and  the revision petitions  preferred  by\t the\nrespondents  against that order failed before  the  Sessions\nJudge.\tThe Union of India thereupon preferred two  revision\napplications  before the High Court.  The State\t of  Gujarat\nalso  preferred\t separate revision applications\t before\t the\nHigh  Court.  The High Court allowed the revision  petitions\nand directed examination of the three witnesses sought to be\nsummoned.   Being  aggrieved the appellant has\tfiled  these\nappeals\t after obtaining special leave against the  decision\nof the High Court, in the revision applications filed by the\nUnion of India.\t No appeal has been  filed against the order\npassed by the High Court in the revision applications  filed\nbefore it, by the State of Gujarat.  The main contention  of\nthe  appellant is that the High Court erred in allowing\t the\nsecond\trevision  application in view of the  provisions  of\nsection\t  397(3)  of  the  new\tCode  thus  permitting\t the\nprosecution to fill up the lacuna and plug the loopholes  in\nits case which is prejudicial to the appellant.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       713\n     Dismissing the appeals, this Court,\n     HELD: Though Section 540 (Section 311 of the new  Code)\nis,   in  the  widest  possible\t terms\tand  calls  for\t  no\nlimitation,  either  with regard to the stage at  which\t the\npowers\tof the court should be exercised, or with regard  to\nthe manner in which they should be exercised, that power  is\ncircumscribed by the principle that underlines section 540,\nnamely,\t evidence to be obtained should appear to the  court\nessential  to a just decision of the case by getting at\t the\ntruth by all lawful means.  The aid of the section should be\ninvoked\t only with the object of discovering relevant  facts\nor obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just  decision\nof  the\t case  and  it\tmust  be  used\tjudicially  and\t not\ncapricicously  or arbitrarily.\tDue care should be taken  by\nthe  court while exercising power under this section and  it\nmust  not  be  used for filling up the lacuna  left  by\t the\nprosecution or by the defence or to the disadvantage of\t the\naccused or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of\t the\naccused or to give an unfair advantage to the rival side and\nfurther the additional evidence should not be received as  a\ndisguise  for a retrial or to change the nature of the\tcase\nagainst either of the parties. [721B-E]\n     Whenever  any additional evidence is examined or  fresh\nevidence  is admitted against the accused, it is  absolutely\nnecessary  in  the  interests of justice  that\tthe  accused\nshould\tbe  afforded a fair and\t reasonable  opportunity  to\nrebut that evidence brought on record against him. [725E]\n     The Criminal court has ample power to summon any person\nas  a witness or recall and re-examine any such person\teven\nif the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction\nof  the court and must obviously be dictated by exigency  of\nthe situation, and fair-play and good sense appear to be the\nonly  safe guides and that only the requirements of  justice\ncommand the examination of any person which would depend  on\nthe facts and circumstances of each case. [724C-D]\n     The  facts\t and circumstances of the case\trequire\t the\nexamination of these three witnesses for a just decision  of\nthe case as held by the High Court. [726G]\n     Jamatraj Kewalji Govni v. State of Maharashtra,<\/a>  [1967]\n3  SCR 415; Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., [1978]  2\t SCC\n518;  State  of West Bengal v. Tulsidas\t Mundhra,<\/a>  [1963]  2\nS.C.J.\t204  at\t 207; Masalti v. State\tof  U.P.,  AIR<\/a>\t1965\nS.C.202; Rajeshwar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal\t and\nAnr., [1966] 2 S.C.R. 178; R.B. Mithani v.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       714\nMaharashtra, AIR 1971 S.C. 1630; Channu Lal v. R., AIR\t1949\nAll 692; Rengaswami Naicker v. Muruga Naicker, AIR<\/a> 1954\t Mad\n169; Shugan Chand v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Lah 531 and The Queen\nv. Assanoolah, 13 SWR (Crl.) 15, referred to.\n     Mir  Mohd.\t Omar and Others v. State  of  West  Bengal,<\/a>\n[1989] 4 SCC 436, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4
\n& 5 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  21.3.1978  of\t the
\nGujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Application Nos.  98
\nand 97 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     S.K. Kulkarani and P.C. Kapur (NP) for the Appellant.
\n     Arun  Jetley,  Additional Solicitor General,  Ms.\tIndu
\nMalhotra, M.N.\tShroff, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. A.\t Subhashini,
\nMs. Ayesha Karim and P.K. Mullick for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     S.\t RATNAVEL  PANDIAN  J.\tThese  criminal\t appeals  by
\nspecial leave granted under Article 136 of the\tConstitution
\nof  India  are preferred by the\t appellant  questioning\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t the judgment of the Gujarat High  Court  in
\nCriminal Revision Application Nos. 98 and 97 of 1978 whereby
\nthe  High  Court  set aside the judgment  and  orders  dated
\n2.1.1978  of  the  Sessions Judge, Kutch  at  Bhuj  made  in
\nCriminal  Revision  Application\t Nos.  46  and\t45  of\t1976
\nconfirming  the orders dated 19.6.76 passed by the  Judicial
\nMagistrate,  First Class, Kutch in Application Exh. Nos.  94
\nand   98  in  Criminal\tCase  Nos.  929\t and  930  of\t1973
\nrespectively.  The factual matrix that have relevance to the
\nquestions,  raised  and\t canvassed at  the  hearing  may  be
\nbriefly stated.\n<\/p>\n
     A\traid  conducted\t by  the  officers  of\tthe  Customs
\nDepartment  in the business-cum-residential premises of\t the
\nappellant   on\t17.9.1971  resulted in the seizure  of\tsome
\ngold  Lagadis  bearing\tforeign marks,\tprimary\t gold,\tgold
\nornaments  and\tsilver bricks, coins etc. to  the  value  of
\nabout Rs.8,48,422.  During the said raid a sum of  Rs.79,000
\nwas also seized.  In respect of this incident, the Assistant
\nCollector  of  Customs\tfiled  two  separate  complaints  on
\n26.11.1973  against  the  appellant  in\t the  court  of\t the
\nJudicial  Magistrage,  First Class,  Anjar,  being  criminal
\ncases  Nos. 929 and 930 of 1973 for offences punishable\t (1)
\nunder the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       715<\/span>
\nprovisions  of the Customs Act 1962 and (2) under  the\tGold
\nControl\t Act 1968.  After examination of the prosecution  as
\nwell   as  the\tdefence\t witnesses  and\t recording  of\t the
\nstatements  of the appellants under Section 342 of  the\t old
\nCode  of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as\t the
\nCode’)\t arguments   were   advanced  on   behalf   of\t the
\nappellant\/accused.   The  prosecution at this  stage  before
\ncommencing  its\t arguments filed two applications  both\t the
\ncases  under Section 540 of the old Code  (corresponding  to
\nSection\t 311 of the new Code) requesting the Trial Court  to
\nrecall\tMr.  Mirchandani (the Seizing Officer)\tfor  further
\nexamination  and  to issue summons to  two  more  witnesses,
\nnamely, Mr. K.K. Das, Assistant Collector of Customs and the
\nDeputy\tChief Officer (Assayer) of Mint Master,\t Bombay\t for
\nexamination  either  as prosecution witnesses  or  as  court
\nwitnesses  as  cotemplated under the  said  provision.\t The
\nlearned Judicial Magistrate passed two orders rejecting\t the
\napplications  which orders, on revision by  the\t respondents
\nwere confirmed by the session’s Judge on being aggrieved  by
\nthe  said revisional orders, the Union of India\t (the  first
\nrespondent   herein)   preferred   two\t Criminal   Revision
\nApplications Nos. 97 and 98 of 1978.  The second respondent,
\nnamely,\t the  State  of Gujarat\t also  preferred  two  other
\nCriminal Revision Application Nos. 124 and 125 of 1978.\t The
\nHigh Court by its Common Judgment, though heavily criticised
\nthe  conduct  of  the prosecution  for\tits  deplorable\t and
\nlethargic attitude in not carefully and promptly  conducting
\nthe  proceedings allowed all the Criminal Revisions for\t the
\nreasons assigned therein holding thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “In  view of what has been stated above,  I  accept
\n\t the four petitions filed in this court by the Union
\n\t of India, and the State of Gujarat, and direct\t the
\n\t Union\tof  India  to examine  the  aforesaid  three
\n\t witnesses  within a period of fortnight  after\t the
\n\t receipt  of  the order of this court to  the  trial
\n\t court.\t  After\t the  Union of\tIndia  examines\t the
\n\t aforesaid three witnesses as aforesaid, it will  be
\n\t open  to  the\taccused\t to  cross-examine  all\t the
\n\t witnesses examined by the Union of India before the
\n\t learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
     Feeling  aggrieved by the judgment of the\tHigh  Court,
\nthese  two appeals are preferred by the appellant.  In\tthis
\ncontext, it is pertinent to note that the appellant has\t not
\ndirected  any appeal against the judgment of the High  Court
\nin allowing the two other Revision Application Nos. 124\t and
\n126 of 1978 filed by the Gujarat Government which were\talso
\nallowed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       716<\/span><\/p>\n
     The   learned  counsel  appearing\ton  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant vigorously challenged the legality of the impugned
\njudgment inter-alia  contending\t that  the  High  Court\t has
\ngravely\t erred\tin allowing the\t second\t revision  petitions
\nfiled  by  the respondent by ignorning the  weighty  reasons
\ngiven by the Trial Magistrate and the Section Judge  (before
\nwhom the first revision was filed) and thereby in permitting
\nthe  respondent-the  Union  of India-to\t examine  the  three
\nwitnesses as prayed by it, notwithstanding that the case was
\npending\t before the Trial Court for considerable  length  of
\ntime  and  the defence argument was concluded and  that\t the
\nHigh  Court,  by  the  impugned\t order\thas  permitted\t the
\nprosecution to bolster up its case by filling up the  lacuna
\nand  plugging  the loopholes which if carried out  would  be
\ndetrimental and prejudicial to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The  next\tlegal  submission  made\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  is that the entertainment of the second  revision
\nby  the High Court is in violation of sub-sections  (2)\t and
\n(3) of Section 397 of the new Code since the order passed by
\nthe  Magistrate\t was an interlocutory order  and  that\teven
\nassuming that it was not so, the second revision by the same
\naffected party is not entertainable.\n<\/p>\n
     Before adverting to the arguments advanced on behalf of
\nthe  appellant,\t we would examine in general the  scope\t and
\nintent\tof  Section 540 of the old  Code  (corresponding  to
\nSection 311 of the new Code).\n<\/p>\n
     Section  540 was found in Chapter XLVI of the old\tCode
\nof  1898 under the heading “Miscellaneous’. But the  present
\ncorresponding  Sections 311 of the new Code is\tfound  among
\nother  Sections in Chapter XXIV under the  heading  ‘General
\nProvisions  as to Enquiries and Trials’.  Section 311 is  an
\nalmost verbatim reproduction of Section 540 of the old\tCode
\nexcept\tfor  the insertion of the words ‘to be’\t before\t the
\nword ‘essential’ occurring in the old Section.\tThis section
\nis manifestly in two parts.  Whereas the word ‘used’ in\t the
\nfirst  part  is ‘may’ the word used in the  second  part  is
\n‘shall’.  In consequence, the first part which is permissive
\ngives  purely discretionary authority to the  Criminal\tCode
\nand  enables  it ‘at any stage of enquiry’  trial  or  other
\nproceedings’ under the Code to act in one of the three ways,
\nnamely,
\n\t (1) to summon any person as a witness or
\n\t (2) to examine any person in attendance, though not
\n\t summoned as a witness, or
\n\t (3)  to  recall and re-examine any  person  already
\n\t examined.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       717<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t  second  part\twhich  is  mandatory   imposes\t an
\nobligation on the Court-\n<\/p>\n
\t (1) to summon and examine, or
\n\t (2) to recall and re-examine any such person if his
\n\t evidence  appears  to\tbe  essential  to  the\tjust
\n\t decision of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     The  very usage of the words such as ‘any\tcourt’,\t ‘at
\nany stage’, or ‘of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings’,
\n‘any  person’ and ‘any such person’ clearly spells out\tthat
\nthis  section is expressed in the widest possible terms\t and
\ndo  not\t limit\tthe  discretion of the\tCourt  in  any\tway.
\nHowever,  the  very width requires a  corresponding  caution
\nthat  the  discretionary  power should\tbe  invoked  as\t the
\nexigencies  of justice require and exercised judically\twith
\ncircumpection  and consistently with the provisions  of\t the
\nCode.  The second part of the Section does not allow for any
\ndiscretion but it binds and compels the Court to take any of
\nthe  aforementioned  two steps if the fresh evidence  to  be
\nobtained is essential to the just decision of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that\t the
\nbest  available evidence should be brought before the  Court
\nto  prove  a  fact or the points in issue. But\tit  is\tleft
\neither\tfor the prosecution or for the defence to  establish
\nits respective case by adducing the best available  evidence
\nand  the Court is not empowered under the provisions of\t the
\nCode  to  compel either the prosecution or  the\t defence  to
\nexamine any particular witness or witnesses on their  sides.
\nNonetheless if either of the parties with-holds any evidence
\nwhich\tcould  be  produced  and  which,  if  produced,\t  be
\nunfavorable  to\t the party withholding\tsuch  evidence,\t the
\ncourt  can  draw  a presumption under  illustration  (g)  to
\nSection\t 114  of the Evidence Act.  In such  a\tsituation  a
\nquestion  that\tarises\tfor  consideration  is\twhether\t the
\npresiding  officer  of a Court should simply sit as  a\tmere
\numpire\tat a contest between two parties and declare at\t the
\nend  of combat who has won and who has lost or is there\t not
\nany  legal duty of his own, independent of the\tparties,  to
\ntake an active role in the proceedings in finding the  truth
\nand  administering  justice?   It is  a\t well  accepted\t and
\nsettled principle that a Court must discharge its  statutory
\nfunctions-whether  discretionary or obligatory-according  to
\nlaw in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a  Court
\nnot  only to do justice but also to ensure that\t justice  is
\nbeing  done.  In order to enable the Court to find  out\t the
\ntruth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of
\nSection\t 540 of the Code (Section 311 of the New  Code)\t are
\nenacted whereunder any
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       718<\/span>
\nCourt by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage
\nof enquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any  person
\nas a witness or examine any person in attendance though\t not
\nsummoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person  in
\nattendance  though not summoned as a witness or\t recall\t and
\nre-examine  any person already examined who are expected  to
\nbe  able to throw light upon the matter in dispute;  because
\nif judgments happen to be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive
\nand  speculative presentation of facts, the ends of  justice
\nwould be defeated.\n<\/p>\n
     There  are\t various other provisions in  the  new\tCode
\ncorresponding  to the provision of the old  Code  empowering
\nthe  court  specified  therein\tto  recall  any\t witness  or
\nwitnesses  already examined or summon any witness, if it  is
\nfelt necessary in the interest of justice at various  stages
\nmentioned in the concerned specific provisions.\n<\/p>\n
     A\tJudge under Section 236 (Section 310 old Code) or  a
\nMagistrate under Section 248(3) (Section 251-A(13) and 255-A
\nold  Code) is empowered to take evidence in respect  of\t the
\nprevious  convictions of the accused person concerned if  he
\nis  charged with the previous conviction  under\t sub-section
\n(7)  of\t Section 211 and if he does not admit  the  previous
\nconviction.   Under Section 367 (Section 375 old  Code)\t if,
\nwhen  sentence of death passed by the Court of\tSessions  is
\nsubmitted  for confirmation to the High Court under  Section
\n366(1) (Section 374 of the old Code), the High Court  thinks
\nthat  a\t further enquiry should be made into  or  additional
\nevidence  taken\t upon, any point bearing upon the  guilt  or
\ninnocence of the convicted  person, it may make such inquiry
\nor  take  such evidence itself or direct it to\tbe  made  or
\ntaken by the Court of Session.\n<\/p>\n
     Under  Section  391  (Section  428\t of  old  Code)\t the
\nAppellate Court while dealing with any appeal under  Chapter
\nXXIX,  if  thinks additional evidence to be  necessary,\t may
\nafter recording its reasons either take such evidence itself
\nor direct it to be taken by a subordinate Court as the\tcase
\nmay be.\t Under Section 463(2) (Section 533 old Code) if\t any
\nCourt  of  Appeal,  Reference  and  Revision  before   which
\nconfession  or\tother statement of an  accused\trecorded  or
\npurporting  to be recorded under Section 164 or Section\t 281
\n(Section  364  of  the old Code) is tendered,  or  has\tbeen
\nreceived  in evidence, finds that any of the  provisions  of
\neither\tsuch  sections have not been complied  with  by\t the
\nMagistrate   recording\t the  statement,   the\t Court\t may
\nnotwithstanding\t anything  contained in Section\t 91  of\t the
\nIndian\tEvidence  Act take evidence in regard to  such\tnon-
\ncompliance and may, if satisfied that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       719<\/span>
\nsuch  non-compliance  has  not injured the  accused  in\t his
\ndefence\t on the merits and that he duly made  the  statement
\nrecorded, admit such evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     Analogous\tto  the\t above provisions  of  the  Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure there are various provisions in the civil
\nProcedure  Code\t also  enabling the civil  Court  to  summon
\nwitnesses  and\texamine\t them in the  interest\tof  justice.
\nUnder Order X Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the  Court
\nat  the\t first\thearing of the suit  or\t at  any  subsequent
\nhearing may examine any party appearing in person or present
\nin Court or any person able to answer any material questions
\nrelating  to the suit by whom such party or his\t pleader  is
\naccompanied.  Under Order X Rule 14 the Court may of its own
\nmotion summon as a witness any person including the party to
\nthe  suit  for examination and the said Rule  is  under\t the
\ncaption\t “Court\t may of its own accord summon  as  witnesses
\nstrangers  to  suit” and Order XVIII Rule  17  empowers\t the
\nCourt  to recall any witness who has been examined  and\t may
\nsubject\t to Law of Evidence for the time being in force\t put
\nsuch  questions to him as it thinks fit.  The powers of\t the
\nCourt under this Rule 17 are discretionary and very wide.\n<\/p>\n
     Besides  the  above specific provisions under  the\t Cr.
\nP.C. and C.P.C. empowering the criminal and civil courts  as
\nthe case may be, to summon and examine witnesses, a Judge in
\norder  to discover or to obtain proof of relevant  facts  is
\nempowered  under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence  Act  to
\nexercise  all  the  privileges and  powers  subject  to\t the
\nproviso\t to  that  section  which power\t he  has  under\t the
\nEvidence  Act.\tSection 540 of the old Code (Section 311  of
\nthe  new  Code) and Section 165 of the Evidence Act  may  be
\nsaid  to be complementary to each other and as\tobserved  by
\nthis   Court  in  Jamatraj  Kewalji  Govani  v.\t  State\t  of
\nMaharashtra,<\/a>  [1967] 3 SCR 415 “these two  sections  between
\nthem  confer  jurisdiction  on the Judge to act\t in  aid  of
\njustice.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  second part of Section 540 as pointed\t out  albeit
\nimposes\t upon  the  Court  an  obligation  of  summoning  or
\nrecalling   and\t re-examining  any  witness  and  the\tonly
\ncondition  prescribed  is  that the evidence  sought  to  be
\nobtained must be essential to the just decision of the case.
\nThough\t any  party  to\t the  proceedings  points  out\t the
\ndesirability  some evidence being taken, then the Court\t has
\nto   exercise\tits  power   under   this   provision-either
\ndiscetionary   or  mandatory-depending\ton  the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of  each case, having in view that  the\tmost
\nparamount principle underlying this provision is to discover
\nor to obtain proper proof of relevant facts in order to meet
\nthe
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       720<\/span>
\nrequirements  of justice.  In this connection we would\tlike
\nto quote with approval the following views of Lumpkin, J. in
\nEpps v. S., 19 Ga, 118 (Am), which reads thus:
\n\t “…………it is not only the right but the\tduty
\n\t of the presiding judge to call the attention of the
\n\t witness to it, whether it makes for or against\t the
\n\t prosecution;  his aim being neither to\t punish\t the
\n\t innocent  nor screen the guilty, but to  administer
\n\t the law correctly ……………………………
\n\t ……………………………………………
\n\t Counsel  seek only for their client’s success;\t but
\n\t the judge must watch that justice triumphs.”
\n     The  law is clearly expounded in the case\tof  Jamatraj
\nKewalji\t Govani (referred to above) wherein Hidayatullah,  J
\nas  he\tthen  was, while speaking for the  Bench  about\t the
\nunfettered  discretionary power of the court  as   envisaged
\nunder Section 540 of the Code has stated thus:
\n\t “It is difficult to limit the power under our\tCode
\n\t to  cases  which  involve  something  arising\t ex-
\n\t improviso  which no human ingenuity could  foresee,
\n\t in  the course of the defence.\t Our Code  does\t not
\n\t make this a condition of the exercise of the  power
\n\t and   it  is  not  right  to  embark  on   judicial
\n\t legislation.\tCases that go far are of course\t not
\n\t quite right.  Indeed they could be decided on\tfact
\n\t because  it  can  always be seen  whether  the\t new
\n\t matter\t is strictly  necessary for a just  decision
\n\t and not intended to give an unfair advantage to one
\n\t of the rival sides …………………………..
\n\t ……………………………………………
\n\t ……………………………………………
\n\t It would appear that in our criminal  jurisdiction,
\n\t statutory law confers a power in absolute terms  to
\n\t be exercised at any stage of the trial to summon  a
\n\t witness  or  examine  one present in  court  or  to
\n\t recall\t a witness already examined, and makes\tthis
\n\t the  duty and obligation of the Court provided\t the
\n\t just  decision\t of the case demands it.   In  other
\n\t words,\t where the court exercises the\tpower  under
\n\t the second part, the inquiry cannot be whether\t the
\n\t accused   has\t brought   anything   suddenly\t  or
\n\t unexpectedly  but  whether the court  is  right  in
\n\t thinking that the new evidence is needed by it\t for
\n\t a  just  decision of the case.\t If  the  court\t has
\n\t acted without the requirements of a just  decision,
\n\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       721<\/span>
\n\t action\t is  open to criticism but  if\tthe  court’s
\n\t action\t is  supportable as being in aid of  a\tjust
\n\t decision the action cannot be regarded as exceeding
\n\t the jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  next\timportant question is  whether\tSection\t 540
\ngives\tthe  court  carte-blanche  drawing   no\t  underlying
\nprinciple  in the exercise of the extra-ordinary  power\t and
\nwhether\t the  said  Section is\tunguided,  uncontrolled\t and
\nuncanalised.   Though  Section 540 (Section 311 of  the\t new
\nCode)  is,  in the widest possible terms and  calls  for  no
\nlimitation,  either  with regard to the stage at  which\t the
\npowers\tof the court should be exercised, or with regard  to
\nthe manner in which they should be exercised, that power  is
\ncircumscribed by the principle that underlines Section\t540,
\nnamely,\t evidence to be obtained should appear to the  court
\nessential  to a just decision of the case by getting at\t the
\ntruth by all lawful means.  Therefore, it should be borne in
\nmind that the aid of the section should be invoked only with
\nthe object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper
\nproof  of such facts for a just decision of the case and  it
\nmust be used judicially and not capriciously or\t arbitrarily
\nbecause any improper or capricious exercise of the power may
\nlead  to undesirable results.  Further it is incumbent\tthat
\ndue  care should be taken by the court while exercising\t the
\npower  under  this  section and it should not  be  used\t for
\nfilling\t up  the lacuna left by the prosecution\t or  by\t the
\ndefence\t or to the disadvantage of the accused or the  cause
\nserious\t prejudice to the defence of the accused or to\tgive
\nan  unfair  advantage  to the rival  side  and\tfurther\t the
\nadditional evidence should not be received as a disguise for
\na retrial or to change the nature of the case against either
\nof the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     Fazal  Ali,  J  in Rameshwar Dayal v.  State  of  U.P.,
\n[1978]\t2  SCC\t518 while expressing  his  views  about\t the
\ncareful exercise of its power by the court has stated:
\n\t “It is true that under Section 540 of the  Criminal
\n\t Procedure  Code  the High Court has got  very\twide
\n\t powers to examine any witness it likes for the just
\n\t decision  of  the case, but this power\t has  to  be
\n\t exercised  sparingly  and  only when  the  ends  of
\n\t justice  so demand.  The higher the power the\tmore
\n\t careful should be its exercise ………………..
\n\t The words, “Just decision of the case” would become
\n\t meaningless  and  without  any\t significance  if  a
\n\t decision  is  to be arrived at without a  sense  of
\n\t justice and fair play.”\n<\/p>\n
     In\t State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas Mundhra,<\/a> [1963]  2
\nS.C.J. 204 at 207, it has observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       722<\/span><\/p>\n
\t “It  would be noticed that this section confers  on
\n\t criminal  Courts very wide powers.  It is no  doubt
\n\t for  the Court to consider whether its power  under
\n\t this section should be exercised or not. But if  it
\n\t is  satisfied that the evidence of any\t person\t not
\n\t examined or further evidence of any person  already
\n\t examined  is essential to the just decision of\t the
\n\t case,\tit is its duty to take such  evidence.\t The
\n\t exercise  of the power conferred by section 540  is
\n\t conditioned  by the requirement that such  exercise
\n\t would\tbe  essential to the just  decision  of\t the
\n\t case.”\n<\/p>\n
     At\t the risk of repetition it may be said that  Section
\n540  allows  the court to invoke its inherent power  at\t any
\nstage,\tas long as the court retains seisin of the  criminal
\nproceeding,    without\t qualifying   any   limitation\t  or
\nprohibition.  Needless to say that an enquiry or trial in  a
\ncriminal proceeding comes to an end or reaches its  finality
\nwhen the order or judgment is pronounced and until then\t the
\ncourt  has  power to use this section.\tThe  answer  to\t the
\nquestion like the one that has arisen in the present case is
\nwhether the court would be justified in exercising its power
\nunder  Section 540 is found in Kewalji’s case (albeit).\t  In
\nthat  case the appellant was prosecuted on two counts  under
\nSection\t 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act.   The  appellant
\ndid not lead any evidence on his behalf but filed a  written
\nstatement,  claiming  inter-alia that no  offence  had\tbeen
\ndisclosed against him, since no witness had deposed that the
\ncontraband  had\t been seized from him under the Act  in\t the
\nreasonable  belief that they were smuggled goods.   The\t day
\nafter  the statement was filed, the prosecution applied\t for
\nexamination  of the customs officer who was incharge of\t the
\nsearch\tas a court witness in the interest of justice.\t The
\nMagistrate  ordered  the examination of\t the  officer  under
\nSection\t 540 of the Code rejecting the objections raised  by
\nthe  appellant.\t  Though  an opportunity was  given  to\t the
\nappellant  to  lead defence evidence, the  appellant  stated
\nthat he had nothing further to add and no evidence to  lead.
\nThe Trial Court convicted the appellant who being  aggrieved
\nby  the judgment of the Trial Court preferred an  appeal  to
\nthe  High  Court which dismissed the  appeal.\tBefore\tthis
\nCourt it was contended that the evidence of the officer\t was
\nimproperly  received.  That contention has been repelled  by
\nthis court observing “This power is exercisable at any\ttime
\nand  the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly so\tstates”\t and
\nthereafter  concluded “it cannot be said that the Court\t had
\nexceeded  its  jurisdiction  in acting the  second  part  of
\nSection 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”\n<\/p>\n
     Gajendragadkar,  J. speaking for the Bench in  Tulsidas
\nMundhra
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       723<\/span>
\n(cited supra) has pointed out as follows:
\n\t “Section  540 in terms applies at any stage of\t any
\n\t enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
\n\t This section is wide enough to include a proceeding
\n\t under\t section   207-A  and  so,   it\t  would\t  be
\n\t unreasonable to contend that the scheme of  section
\n\t 207-A\t makes\tsection\t 540  inapplicable  to\t the
\n\t proceeding governed by section 207-A. The power  of
\n\t the  Court  under section 540 can be  exercised  as
\n\t much  in regard to cases governed by section  207-A
\n\t as  in regard to other proceedings governed by\t the
\n\t other relevant provisions of the Code.”\n<\/p>\n
(It  may  be  noted that section 207-A of the  old  Code  in
\nChapter XVIII under the caption “Enquiry into cases  triable
\nby  the court of Session or the High Court” dealt  with\t the
\nprocedures to be adopted in proceedings instituted on police
\nreport and this provision is omitted in the new Code.)
\n     This Court in Kewalji’s case (albeit) held that Chapter
\nXXI  of\t Cr. P.C. (old) under the heading “Of the  Trail  of
\nWarrant-cases  by Magistrates” does not restrict the  powers
\nof criminal court under Section 540.\n<\/p>\n
     In Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR<\/a> 1965 S.C. 202  wherein
\nthe  defence did not opt to examine some witnesses who\thave
\nbeen  left  out by the prosecution on the bona\tfide  belief
\nthat  those witnesses had been won over and the\t court\talso
\nafter  due deliberation refused to exercise its power  under
\nSection\t 540; this Court while examining a  submission\tthat
\nthe  Trial  Court  should have\texercised  its\tpower  under
\nSection\t 540  and  examined those  witnesses  expressed\t its
\nopinion that “that is one aspect of the matter which we have
\nto  take  into account”-that is in considering\twhether\t the
\naccused were prejudiced or not.\n<\/p>\n
     It has been held by this Court in Rajeswar Prasad\tMora
\nv.  State  of  West Bengal & Anr.,[1966]  1  SCR  178  while
\ndealing\t with the ample power and jurisdiction of the  court
\nin taking additional evidence as follows:
\n\t “Additional evidence may be necessary for a variety
\n\t of reasons which it is hardly necessary (even if it
\n\t was  possible) to list here.  We do not propose  to
\n\t do what the Legislature
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       724<\/span>
\n\t has  refrained\t from  doing,  namely,\tto   control
\n\t discretion of the appellate Court to certain stated
\n\t circumstances.\t  It  may,  however,  be  said\tthat
\n\t additional  evidence must be necessary not  because
\n\t it  would be impossible to pronounce  judgment\t but
\n\t because  there would be failure of justice  without
\n\t it.  The power must be exercised sparingly and only
\n\t in suitable cases.  Once such action is  justified,
\n\t there\tis  no restriction on the kind\tof  evidence
\n\t which\tmay  be\t received.   It\t may  be  formal  or
\n\t substantial.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  above view has been reiterated in R.B. Mithani  v.
\nMaharashtra, AIR 1971 S.C. 1630.\n<\/p>\n
     The  principle  of\t law that  emerges  from  the  views
\nexpressed  by this court in the above decisions is that\t the
\nCriminal  Court\t has ample power to summon any person  as  a
\nwitness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the
\nevidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the
\ncourt  must  obviously\tbe  dictated  by  exigency  of\t the
\nsituation,  and\t fair-play and good sense appear to  be\t the
\nonly  safe guides and that only the requirements of  justice
\ncommand and examination of any person which would depend  on
\nthe facts and circumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
     What falls for determination now is whether the  person
\nindicated  should  be  given an\t opportunity  to  rebut\t the
\nevidence  of the witness or witnesses summoned and  examined
\nunder Section  540.  This question came for determination in
\nRameshwar Dayal’s case and this court answered that question
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “It was argued by counsel for the State that  there
\n\t is  no\t provision in the  Criminal  Procedure\tCode
\n\t which requires the court to allow the appellant  an
\n\t opportunity  to  rebut the  evidence  of  witnesses
\n\t recommended   under  Section  540  Cr.\t P.C.\tThis
\n\t argument,  in\tour opinion, is based on  a  serious
\n\t misconception\tof  the\t correct  approach  to\t the
\n\t cardinal  principles of criminal justice.   Section
\n\t 540 itself incorporates a rule of natural  justice.
\n\t The accused is presumed to be innocent until he  is
\n\t proved\t guilty.   It is, therefore,  manifest\tthat
\n\t where\tany fresh evidence is admitted\tagainst\t the
\n\t accused  the presumption of innocence\tis  weakened
\n\t and the accused in all fairness should be given  an
\n\t opportunity  to rebut that evidence.  The right  to
\n\t adduce\t  evidence  in\trebuttal  is  one   of\t the
\n\t inevitable steps in the defence of a case by
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       725<\/span>
\n\t the  accused and a refusal of the same amounts\t not
\n\t only  to  an infraction of the\t provisions  of\t the
\n\t Criminal Procedure Code but also of the  principles
\n\t of  natural  justice and offends the  famous  maxim
\n\t audi alteram partem ………………………….
\n\t ……………………………………………
\n\t A  careful  perusal of\t this  provision  manifestly
\n\t reveals  that the statute has armed the Court\twith
\n\t all  the  powers  to do full  justice\tbetween\t the
\n\t parties  as full justice cannot be done until\tboth
\n\t the  parties  are properly heard the  condition  of
\n\t giving\t an opportunity to the accused to rebut\t any
\n\t fresh\tevidence  sought to be adduced\tagainst\t him
\n\t either at the trial or the appellate stage  appears
\n\t to  us to be implicit under Section 540 of the\t Cr.
\n\t P.C.”\n<\/p>\n
     See  also Kewalji’s case (cited above).  This  was\t the
\nview  taken by various High Court such as in Channu  Lal  v.
\nR., AIR 1949 All. 692; Rengaswami Naicker v. Muruga Naicker,
\nAIR<\/a> 1954 Mad. 169; Shugan Chand v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Lah 531
\nand The Queen v. Assanoolah, 13 SWR (Crl.) 15.\n<\/p>\n
     The  views\t expressed  in the above  judgments  of\t the
\nvarious\t High  Courts  have been approved by this  Court  in
\nRameshwar  Dayal’s case.  We are in full agreement with\t the
\nabove  view  of\t Fazal Ali, J and  hold\t that  whenever\t any
\nadditional  evidence  is  examined  or\tfresh  evidence\t  is
\nadmitted against the accused, it is absolutely necessary  in
\nthe interest of justice that the accused should be  afforded
\na  fair\t and reasonable opportunity to rebut  that  evidence
\nbrought on record against him.\n<\/p>\n
     With  this\t legal\tbackground let us now  turn  to\t the
\nchallenge posed by the appellant in these appeals. The Trial
\nCourt  and the First Revision Court rejected the request  of
\nthe  prosecution  on three grounds, namely, first  that\t the
\nprosecution has attempted to fabricate evidence at a belated
\nstage  to  fill up the lacuna in the  prosecution  case\t and
\nsecondly  that\tthe request of the  prosecution\t for  taking
\nadditional evidence was after the closure of the defence and
\nthirdly\t a  substantial\t prejudice would be  caused  to\t the
\nappellant  if  the prosecution is allowed  to  adduce  fresh
\nevidence.  As pointed out by the High Court in its  impugned
\norder,\tgold, silver ornaments of the value  of\t Rs.8,48,482
\nand  currency notes of Rs.79,000 have been seized  from\t the
\npremises,  searched  on the strength of the  search  warrant
\nissued by Shri K.K. Das.  What the appellant now contends is
\nthat the order of the High Court permitting the\t prosecution
\nto  recall  one\t of the witnesses already  examined  and  to
\nsummon two other new witnesses to prove
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       726<\/span>
\nthe  foreign makings on the legadis is in violation  of\t the
\nprinciple  underlying  Section\t540.  We  waded\t through the
\nentire\trecords\t inclusive  of the  copies  of\tdepositions,
\nsearch warrant and the application filed by the\t prosecution
\nunder Section 540 which are available in the file, forwarded
\nby  the\t High Court though those documents are\tnot  annexed
\nwith  the  SLP.\t  The prosecution  filed  the  petition\t for
\nexamination  of\t the three witnesses  stating  that  foreign
\ningots (lagadis) have been sized from the possession of\t the
\nappellant and that warrant for search of the premises of the
\nappellant\/accused was issued in this regard by the Assistant
\nCollector  of Customs, namely Shri K.K. Das and hence  fresh
\nevidence  is  necessary\t for a just decision  of  the  case.
\nAfter  perusing\t the depositions of  the  witnesses  already
\nexamined  that\tare  found on the file, we  think  that\t the
\nappellant\/accused cannot be said to be prejudiced in any way
\nby examination of these three witnesses.  PW-2 who was\tthen
\nworking\t as Superintendent of Customs in the office  of\t the
\nAssistant Collector of Customs at Adipur during the relevant
\nperiod\thas  stated  that Shri K.K. Das\t who  was  the\tthen
\nAssistant  Collector  of Customs issued\t the  warrant  dated
\n7.9.1971  authorising  Shri Mirchandani,  Superintendent  of
\nCustoms,   Adipur to search for the prohibited and  dutiable
\ngoods  and  documents  in  the\tpremises  mentioned  in\t the
\nwarrant.  It is elicited from the same witness in the  cross
\nexamination  that the gold ornaments were seized  since\t the
\nsizing\tauthority  doubted that they are smuggled  gold\t and
\nprocured  by  contriving the Gold Control Act.\tIt  is\tseen
\nfrom  the evidence of PW-3 that he and others  inclusive  of
\nSuperintendent\t Mirchandani  went  to\tthe  house  of\t the
\nappellant  and they seized the gold ornaments  Dhalia,\tthat
\nis,  primary gold under Panchnama and search list  Exts.  24
\nand  25.  Therefore, the appellant’s grievance that  he\t has
\nbeen taken by surprise on the request of the prosecution for
\ntaking\tfresh  evidence;  that the  evidence  sought  to  be
\nobtained is only for filling up the lacuna and the judgment,
\nimpugned  is prejudicial to him cannot be countenanced.\t  Of
\nthe  three witnesses, permitted to be summoned and  examined
\non  the side of the Union of India, the Mint Master is\tonly
\nan  assayer.   In  our considered  opinion,  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of the case require the examination of  these
\nthree  witnesses for a just decision of the case as held  by
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the light of the proposition of law which  we\thave
\nderived in the preceding portion of the judgment there is no
\nillegality  in summoning the witnesses after the closure  of
\nthe  defence  arguments.  It is seen from the order  of\t the
\nTrial  Court that the argument\tof the prosecution  has\t not
\nyet  begun.  Since we feel that any further  observation  of
\nours  in  justification\t of this  order\t may  prejudice\t the
\ndefence of the appellant
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       727<\/span>
\nbefore\tthe Trial Court, we are not inclined to discuss\t the
\nevidence any further.\n<\/p>\n
     A\tdecision of this Court in Mir Mohd.  Omar and  Other
\nv. State of West Bengal,<\/a> [1989] 4 SCC 436 was relied upon to
\nshow that after the examination of the accused under Section
\n313 of the new Code (corresponding to Section 342 of the old
\nCode)  the prosecution should not move the Trial  Judge\t for
\nrecalling  a witness already examined, but  the\t observation
\nmade in that decision has no application to the present case
\nbecause\t in  that case the said observation was made  in   a
\ndifferent context by this court while examining the plea  of
\nthe  prosecution  in  making  corrections  of  the  evidence
\nalready\t recorded  under Section 272 of the  Code  and\tthat
\ndecision does not deal with the ambit of Section 540 of\t the
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
     The other contention raised on behalf of the  appellant
\nis   that  the\torder  of  the\tMagistrate   rejecting\t the
\napplication  of the prosecution under Section 540 is  not  a
\nrevisable  order  under\t Section  397(1)  as  it  being\t  an
\ninterlocutory  order  and even if it is not so,\t the  second
\nrevision  by  the  same party-i.e.  Union of  India  is\t not
\nentertainable  in  view of the statutory bar  under  Section
\n397(3)\tof  the new Code as the Union of India\thas  already
\navailed the revision under Section 397(2) before the Session
\nJudge.\t We may straightaway reject this plea on the  simple
\nground that the prosecution in the present case was launched
\nunder the old Code and as such the only provision of the old
\nCode have to be applied as per Section 484 of the new  Code.
\nThe fervent plea of the appellant is though the\t prosecution
\nwas  instituted under the old Code he should not  be  denied
\nthe  benefit and advantage of Section 397(2) and (3) of\t the
\nnew  Code.   We\t are afraid that we  could  accede  to\tthis
\ninexorable request of the appellant for two reasons, namely,
\nthat the appellant has not challenged the maintainability of
\nthe second revision, filed and heard after the\tcommencement
\nof the new Code before the High Court, claiming advantage of
\nSection 397(3) of the new Code and secondly he\tparticipated
\nin  the revision proceedings throughout under the old  Code.
\nHaving\tfailed\tin the revision he has no  justification  to
\nraise  this  point before this Court,  especially  when\t the
\nproceedings under the old Code are saved by Section 484\t  of
\nthe new Code.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t far as the question whether an order under  Section
\n540  of\t the old Code is an inerlocutory order\tor  a  final
\norder, need not be gone into as that question does not arise
\nin  these  proceedings.\t We would like to point\t out  before
\nparting with this judgment that though the High Court by its
\nimpugned judgment directed the Union of India to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       728<\/span>
\nexamine the three witnesses, in fact it has allowed all\t the
\nfour   revision\t applications  inclusive  of  the   revision
\napplication  Nos. 124 and 125 of 1978 filed by the State  of
\nGujarat\t seeking  the same prayer as that of  the  Union  of
\nIndia.\t The  appellant\t as  we\t have  pointed\tout  in\t the
\nprefatory  portion  of this judgment that that part  of\t the
\njudgment of the High Court allowing the two revisions  filed
\nby  the State Government remains unchallenged.\t Further  we
\nwould  like  to\t point\tout  that  the\tHigh  Court  in\t its
\nconcluding  paragraph of its judgment instead of  using\t the
\nwords “I …… direct” ought to have used the word “I …..
\npermit”.\n<\/p>\n
     For  all  the  reasons stated above we  hold  that\t the
\njudgment  of  the  High\t Court\tdoes  not  suffer  from\t any
\nillegality or perversity calling for an interference at\t the
\nhands of this Court and as such the appeals are liable to be
\ndismissed  as devoid of any merit.  However, we\t direct\t the
\nTrial\tCourt\tto  afford  a  fair   opportunity   to\t the
\nappellant\/accused  to cross-examine the witnesses sought  to
\nbe examined by the Union of India and also to lead  rebuttal
\nevidence if the appellant so desires.  Accordingly these two
\nappeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y.L.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       729<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1346, 1991 SCR (1) 712 Author: S Pandian Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) PETITIONER: MOHAN LAL SHAMLAL SONI Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/02\/1991 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-19T07:09:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-19T07:09:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991\"},\"wordCount\":5976,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991\",\"name\":\"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-19T07:09:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-19T07:09:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991","datePublished":"1991-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-19T07:09:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991"},"wordCount":5976,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991","name":"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-19T07:09:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-shamlal-soni-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-22-february-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}