{"id":180637,"date":"2003-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003"},"modified":"2018-11-29T05:25:45","modified_gmt":"2018-11-28T23:55:45","slug":"yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri … on 7 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri … on 7 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) ALD Cri 21, III (2003) BC 158, 2003 BomCR Cri<\/div>\n
Author: A Aguiar<\/div>\n
Bench: A Aguiar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.S. Aguiar, J.<\/p>\n
 1. By this application, presumably under Section
\n482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
\napplicant seeks to invoke the exercise of powers
\nvested in this Court Ex Debito Justitiae to prevent
\napprehended abuse of the procedural law and
\nmiscarriage of justice from taking place. The
\napprehension arises allegedly on account of the order
\npassed by the Sessions Court, Bombay, rejecting
\nMiscellaneous Application No. 376 of 2000 under
\nSection 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
\nThe appellant sought to examine himself on oath in
\norder to enable him to discharge the burden to rebut
\nthe presumption of law under Sections 138 and 139 of
\nthe Negotiable Instruments Act. The said
\nMiscellaneous Application No. 376 of 2000 is filed in
\nCriminal Appeal No. 330 of 2001 from the order dated
\n26.11.2002 passed by the leaned Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, in C.C. No.
\n1173\/S\/95 convicting the Appellant – accused Yogendra
\nBhagatram Sachdev under Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous
\nImprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
\n5,000\/=, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
\nfor three months with a further direction to the
\naccused to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000\/= as
\ncompensation to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
2. The appeal was filed and was admitted on
\n21.12.2001. At the stage when the appeal has become
\nripe for hearing, the applicant-accused files the said
\napplication under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, praying that the appellant be allowed to
\nlead cogent evidence which is on record by way of
\ndocuments, but not by of oral (SIC) and that the
\nsaid Court, that is to say, the Sessions Court either
\ntake his evidence itself of direct it to be taken by
\nthe learned Magistrate subject to Chapter XXIII, as if
\nit was an enquiry. The said application, as stated
\nabove, has been rejected by judgment and order dated
\n21.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
\nGreater Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
3. To appreciate the issues in controversy, it is
\nnecessary to give the brief facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
The applicant and respondent No. 2 were both
\ndirectors of Reliance Silicon, situated at Navi
\nMumbai. Differences arose between the complainant and
\nthe applicant-accused. An amicable settlement was
\narrived at between the parties to the effect that the
\ncomplainant shall transfer his shares to the accused
\nand resigns from the company and, in consideration
\ntherefore, he should be paid Rs. 50,00,000\/= by the
\naccused. Pursuant to the said understanding, blank
\nshare transfer application forms were signed by the
\ncomplainant and handed over to one Shri. Sanghvi, who
\nacted as intervener, and ten cheques of Rs.
\n5,00,000\/= each were handed over by the accused to
\nShri. Sanghavi, who handed over the said cheques to
\nthe complainant as per the understanding. The
\ncomplainant, that is, respondent No. 2 deposited the
\ncheques with his bankers. However, the said cheques
\nwere dishonoured. After compliance of necessary
\nformalities, namely, serving demand notice, etc., a
\ncomplaint came to be filed before the Court of the
\nlearned Magistrate and numbered as Criminal Case No.
\n11\/0\/S\/1998.\n<\/p>\n
4. The contention of the applicant-accused is
\nthat there was no consideration for the issue or
\ncheques and hence there was no legally enforceable
\ndebt or liability entitling respondent No. 2 to encash
\nthe cheques.\n<\/p>\n
5. In support of his case, the complainant
\nexamined himself as P.W. 1 and one bank officer Mr.
\nManoj Anant Patil as P.W. 2 and the intervener friend
\nShri. Sanghvi was examined as P.W. 3. The applicant\n<\/p>\n
– accused did not adduce any evidence. He, however,
\nproduced four documents which were taken on record by
\nconsent and marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-4. These
\nletters were produced in order to show that the shares
\nof the company were in the custody of financial
\ninstitutions which had advanced financial assistance
\nto the company of which accused and the complainant
\nwere directors.\n<\/p>\n
6. It is pertinent to note that in his statement
\nrecorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973, the accused had accepted that he had
\ngiven ten cheques of Rs. 5,00,000\/= each to Shri.
\nSanghvi to be given to the complainant. At the end of
\nrecording his statement under Section 313 of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, 1973 when he was asked whether
\nhe wanted to lead any evidence by entering the witness
\nbox, the Applicant declined the offer.\n<\/p>\n
7. The defence of the applicant-accused is that
\nhe was obliged to pay Rs. 50,00,000\/= to the
\ncomplainant only on transfer of the shares of the
\napplicant in his name and since that transfer had not
\ntaken place, he was not liable to pay the amount
\nstated in the cheques and that, since the shares had
\nnot been transferred in his name, he had instructed
\nhis banker not to make payment.\n<\/p>\n
8. By judgment and order dated 26.11.2001, the
\napplicant was convicted and sentenced by the trial
\nCourt. The same is impugned by the applicant filing
\nCriminal Appeal No. 330 of 2001 which was admitted on
\n21.12.2001. On 3.9.2002, the Criminal Application No.
\n376 of 2002 to alow the Applicant to examine himself
\nand leave evidence, came to be rejected by the Sessions
\nCourt by the impugned order dated 21.11.2002. It is
\nthis order which is the subject-matter of challenge in
\nthe present criminal application.\n<\/p>\n
9. Learned Counsel Shri. Desai appearing on
\nbehalf of the applicant\/accused has pointed out that
\nthe learned Additional Sessions Judge has declined to
\nexercise power under Section 391 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 on two grounds; firstly, that
\nthere is no change in the law regarding discharge of
\nburden of proof under Section 139 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act after the judgment of conviction, and
\nsecondly, that if such application were allowed, it
\nwould open the floodgates leading to a spate of
\napplications seeking to avoid conviction by applying
\nto the Appeal Court to allow the accused to lead
\nevidence in the appeal. It is contended that the
\nlearned Judge in his order dated 21.11.2002 has not
\ndetermined the question whether additional evidence
\nwas necessary as required under Section 397 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for determination of
\ntruth and to subserve the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
10. It is submitted that the scope and ambit of
\nSection 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
\nhas been enunciated in several decisions of various
\nHigh Courts as well as the Supreme Court. A Division
\nBench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of State
\nv. Jaiprakash, ; while
\ndealing with the erstwhile provisions of Section 428
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has observed
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
“2. The section forms an exception to the
\ngeneral rule that an appeal must be decided on
\nthe evidence which was before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Its manifest object is the prevention
\nof a guilty man’s escape through same careless
\nor ignorant proceedings of a trial Court or
\nthe vindication of an innocent person wrongly
\naccused where the trial Court through some
\ncarelessness or ignorance has omitted to
\nrecord the evidence of the circumstances
\nessential to the elucidation of the truth.”\n<\/p>\n
11. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
\nthe case of Ulkha Kolhe v. State, A.I.R. 1963 S.C.
\n1831; while dealing with the erstwhile provisions
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“11. If the Sessions Judge thought that in
\nthe interest of justice and for a just and
\nproper decision of the case it was necessary
\nthat additional evidence should be brought on
\nthe record he should have, instead of
\ndirecting a retiral and reopening the entire
\nproceeding, resorted to the procedure
\nprescribed by Section 428(1) of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure. There is no doubt that if
\nthe ends of justice require, the appellant
\nCourt should exercise its power under the said
\nsection.”\n<\/p>\n
“12. An opportunity to lead this evidence
\nmay be given under Section 428, not with a view to
\nfill up lacunae in the evidence but to
\nregularize the trial of the accused and to
\nensure that the case is establishment against
\nhim beyond reasonable doubt, more so when for
\nthe purpose of convicting the accused reliance
\nis sought to be placed upon a presumption
\narising from the report of a Chemical
\nExaminer, who is not examined before the
\nCourt, and which substantially raises a
\npresumption of guilt.”\n<\/p>\n
12. It is submitted that the aforesaid
\nobservations of the Supreme Court are extremely
\nrelevant in the present context since, in this case,
\nreliance is placed on the presumption under Section
\n139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, since
\nthe prosecution is relying on this presumption, the
\naccused is the best person to discharge the burden of
\nproof under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
\nAct to rebut this presumption, since he would have
\npersonal knowledge of the transactions with the
\ncomplainant. It is contended that an opportunity
\nmust, therefore, be given to the accused to lead his
\nevidence to ensure that he discharges the burden of
\nproof cast on him specially since reliance is sought
\nto be placed on this presumption for convicting the
\naccused under Section 139 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
13. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the
\nSupreme court in the case of Rambhau v. State, , which sets out the scope of Section
\n391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“2. A word of caution, however, ought to
\nbe introduced for guidance, to wit; that this
\nadditional evidence cannot and ought not to be
\nreceived in such a way as to cause any
\nprejudice to the accused. This Court was
\ncandid enough to record, however, that it is
\nthe concept of justice which ought to prevail
\nand in the event the same dictates exercise of
\npower as conferred by the Code, there ought
\nnot to be any hesitation in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
3. Be it noted that no set of principles
\ncan be set forth for such an exercise of power
\nunder Section 391 since the same is dependant
\nupon the fact-situation of the matter and
\nhaving due regard to the concept of fairplay
\nand justice, well-being of the society.\n<\/p>\n
Incidentally, Section 391 forms an
\nexception to the general rule that an Appeal
\nmust be decided on the evidence which was
\nbefore the Trial Court and the powers being an
\nexception shall always have to be exercised
\nwith caution and circumspection so as to meet
\nthe ends of justice. It is not to fill up the
\nlacuna but to subserve the ends of justice.
\nNeedless to record that on an analysis of the
\nCivil Procedure Code, Section 391 is thus akin
\nto Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P. Code.”\n<\/p>\n
14. It is contended that the law as set out in the
\naforesaid decisions has been settled and Section 391
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked
\neither at the behest of the accused or the
\nprosecution, regard being had to the concept of
\njustice and fairplay. Hence the appellate Court
\nshould not hesitate to exercise the powers under
\nSection 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
15. It is further contended that the impugned
\norder does not address this issue at all and the
\nSessions Court has rejected the application on the
\nground that the same would open the floodgates
\nresulting in stalling of all convictions. It is
\nsubmitted that the accused is ready and willing to
\nsubject himself to cross-examination if allowed to
\nlead evidence and no prejudice will, therefore, be
\ncaused to the respondent-complainant.\n<\/p>\n
16. The major thrust of the application, however,
\nseems to be the perceived change in the law after the
\njudgment and order of conviction. It is submitted
\nthat the Supreme Court in Hiten Dalal’s case (2001
\nCriminal Law Journal page 4647) and in the case of K.N.
\nBina v. Muniyappan<\/a> (2001 Cri. L.J. 4741) has
\nmade it obligatory upon the accused to lead evidence
\nif he desires to rebut the presumption that arises
\nunder Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
\nsince the effect of the presumption is to place the
\nevidential burden on the accused of proving that the
\ncheque was not received towards discharge of any
\nliability. The said presumption cannot be rebutted by
\nmerely relying upon documents or proving the said
\ndocuments. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court
\nin the case of Hiten Dalal’s case (2001 Criminal Law
\nJournal paged 4647) while considering the Constitution
\nBench decision in the case of D.B. Desai’s case
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
  “23. The words …..’unless the contrary is
\nproved’ which occur in this provision make it
\nclear that the presumption has to be rebutted
\nby “proof” and not by a bare explanation which
\nis merely plausible. A fact is said to be
\nproved when its existence is directly
\nestablished or when upon the material before
\nit the court finds its existence to be so
\nprobable that a reasonable man would act on
\nthe supposition that it exists. Unless,
\ntherefore, the explanation is supported by
\nproof, the presumption created by the
\nprovisions cannot be said to be
\nrebutted…..”;\n<\/p>\n
17. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court in
\nthat case applied the principle to Section 139 of the
\nNegotiable Instruments Act for the first time and went
\non to consider whether the accused had supported his
\ndefence contained in his 313 statement by any proof
\nsufficient to rebut the presumption. While
\napproaching the evidence, the Supreme Court in para
\n34 observed that “…..The Appellant alone could
\nhave said why he had admittedly executed the said
\ncheque, handed them over to the bank and never asked
\nfor their return. He did not chose to do so.” It is,
\ntherefore, submitted that in view of Hiten Dalal’s
\ncase (2001 Criminal Law Journal paged 4647), which
\nwas reported in the Criminal Law Journal only after
\nthe judgment of conviction, the accused is required to
\nstep into the witness box to prove his defence,
\nnamely, that there was no consideration for issue of
\nthe cheques as the shares were not transferred to him
\nas they were at the relevant time lying with the
\nfinancial institutions. The accused states that he is
\nready to offer the best evidence and corroborate his
\nexplanation contained in his statement by proof by
\nstepping into witness box. Not doing so during the
\ntrial cannot be ground for not invoking the power
\nunder Section 391 Cr.P.C. since that power is to
\nbe exercised in the context of the concept of justice
\nand fairplay and with a view to vindicate the
\ninnocence of a person wrongly accused. It is pointed
\nout that the accused did apply for examination of
\ndefence witnesses and issue of witness summons, but
\nthe learned Magistrate did not consider the said
\napplication invoking Section 294 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
18. It is further pointed out that the documents
\nExhibits D-1 to D-4 suggest that some of the shares
\nwhich are the subject-matter of the transaction are in
\nthe custody of financial institutions, namely, Central
\nBank of India and Maharashtra State Financial
\nCorporation and, therefore, the shares were never in
\npossession of the accused as falsely stated by the
\ncomplainant. The applicant-accused now wants to lead
\nevidence to prove that the balance shares were also
\nnot with him. It is further submitted that in the
\ninstant case, it is the bare word of the complainant
\nin cross-examination that the physical custody of the
\nshares, which were the subject-matter of the
\ntransaction, were always with the accused. Therefore,
\nthe accused should be given an opportunity by stepping
\ninto the witness-box to prove that the bare word of
\nthe complainant is not true.\n<\/p>\n
19. It is submitted that the balance of
\nconvenience is also in favour of the accused since no
\nprejudice would be caused to the complainant if the
\naccused is allowed to examine himself and present the
\naforesaid facts and he would be open to
\ncross-examination by the complainant. On the other
\nhand, irreparable harm will be caused to the accused
\nif he is deprived of this opportunity as he would be
\nsent to jail on a mere technicality.\n<\/p>\n
20. After having given anxious consideration to
\nthe submissions of the learned advocate for the
\nApplicant\/Accused, I am afraid no case has been made
\nout for interfering with the impugned order of the
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge by granting the
\nrelief prayed for. Dealing with the contention that
\nthe Hiten Dalal’s case and Bina’s case (supra) set
\nout a different, if not new, proposition in law which
\nwas not in existence prior to the date of conviction
\nof the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
\nhas rightly rejected the said contention since there
\nis nothing new in what the Supreme Court has said in
\nthe said two decisions. The Apex Court has in the
\naforesaid decisions only reiterated the position by
\nreference to the earlier authorities which set out the
\nsame principle as to the standard of proof required.
\nThe Supreme Court has in Hiten Dalal’s case referred
\nto its decisions in the earlier cases of (i)
\nDhanvatrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra,<\/a>
\n, (ii) V.D. Jhingan v.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P., ; (iii)
\nSailendranath Bose v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1968 S.C.
\n1292; and (iv) in the case of Ramkrishna Bedu Rane
\nv. State of Maharashtra<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
21. Regarding the observations of the learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge that granting of such
\napplications would open the floodgates resulting in a
\nspate of such applications filed purely with a view to
\ndelay and or subvert the judgments of conviction
\npassed by trial Courts, it seems to me that the said
\nobservations are not without merit and the
\napprehension is justified. However, mere probability
\nor possibility of the floodgates being opened would
\nnot necessarily prevent the Court from entertaining
\nthe application under Section 391 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 allowing the accused to lead
\nevidence in appeal from conviction, if it was
\nabsolutely necessary in the “fact situation” for the
\npurpose of doing justice between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
22. All the decisions cited by the learned advocate
\nfor the applicant are agreed that the exercise of
\npower by the Judge under Section 391 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure must be to meet the ends of justice
\nso that injustice is not done to the accused on
\naccount of some irregularity in the conduct of trial
\nor where the trial Court through ignorance has omitted
\nto record the evidence of circumstances essential to
\nelucidate the truth, with a caveat, that exercise of
\nsuch power should not be with a view to fillup the
\nlacunae in the evidence. Thus the Court acting under
\nSection 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
\nrequired to exercise its discretion to allow the
\napplicant-accused to lead evidence by examining
\nhimself at the appeal stage with circumspection and
\ncaution and only with the object of doing justice
\nbetween the parties in the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case. However, if the purpose of the prosecution
\nor the accused to adduce evidence at the appeal stage
\nis for the purpose of filling in lacunae, then such an
\napplication must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
23. In the present case it is seen that the
\napplicant-accused had not disclosed any defence prior
\nto the trial. The applicant-accused, for reason best
\nknown to him, has not sent any reply to the statutory
\nnotice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act. The failure to reply to this 138
\nnotice not being explained would raise a presumption
\nthat the Accused had, in fact, no defence whatsoever.
\nAfter the prosecution was launched and the evidence on
\nbehalf of the complainant concluded and the Section
\n313 statement of the Accused recorded, the
\nApplicant-accused was offered the opportunity to lead
\nevidence by examining himself or examination of
\nwitnesses in his defence. However, he declined to do
\nso. No doubt, he had filed an application dated
\n19.5.2001 for issue of witness summons, but that
\napplication was not pressed and notice was given by
\nthe Accused to the complainant under Section 294 Code
\nof Criminal Procedure in August 2001 and the documents
\nmarked Exhibits D-1 to D-4 were taken on record by
\nconsent of the parties. Thus, at the stage of trial,
\nthe applicant-accused sought to rebut the presumption
\nonly on the basis of these four documents, which the
\nApplicant\/Accused produced at the time of recording
\nhis statement under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure. In his 313 statement, the accused
\nmade it explicit that except for the production of the
\ndocuments, he did not want to examine himself or any
\ndefence witness. It is not the case of the applicant
\naccused that at the trial when he declined the offer
\nto lead evidence in his defence, he did not have the
\nbenefit of legal advice. He was represented by an
\nadvocate. It, therefore, cannot be argued that he
\ngave up a valuable legal right of examining witnesses.
\nin his defence out of ignorance of the law. The
\napplicant-accused has with full knowledge of the facts
\nand the law applicable deliberately restricted his
\ndefence to the said four documents Exhibits D-1 to D-4
\nto prove that the shares were not given to him by the
\ncomplainant and were not in his possession as the same
\nwere in possession of financial institutions.\n<\/p>\n
24. By this application under Section 391 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
\napplicant-accused seeks to rebut the presumption under
\nSection 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by
\nleading evidence in his defence to prove that all the
\nshares were not in his possession but in possession of
\nfinancial institutions. This clearly is an
\nimprovement in the defence as the four documents
\nExhibits D-1 to D-4 are in respect of some 10-12
\nshares only while the consideration for issue of the
\ncheques admittedly is for surrender of all 12% shares
\nin Reliance Silicon India Ltd. by the complainant to
\nthe accused. It is clear that a new case is sought to
\nbe put up in appeal by the applicant-accused stepping
\ninto the witness box and examining himself. The
\napplicant-accused chose not to reply to the said
\nnotice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
\nAct, he chose not to examine himself or lead any
\nevidence in defence at the trial; he chose not toe
\npress his application for issue of witness summons;
\nand chose to restrict his defence to the four
\ndocuments only, namely, Exhibits D-1 and D-4 which
\npertained only to some 10-12 shares and not all
\nshares of Reliance Silicon India Ltd. The application
\nfor witness summons which the accused claims to have
\nfiled in the trial Court is to before this Court
\ntoday. It is not clear whether the case of the
\napplicant-accused is that these witnesses whom he
\nproposed to examine would prove that all shares were
\nnot in his custody but in custody of financial
\ninstitutions. If that was, in fact, his defence, then
\nthe applicant-accused will be deemed to have given up
\nthis defence by waiving his right to lead evidence and
\nrestricting his defence to only the four documents
\nwhich admittedly cover only some and not all the
\nshares. It is the case of the Applicant\/Accused that
\nsince there was no consideration, the accused was
\nentitled to stop the payment of the cheques. If this
\nwas, in fact, the defence of the accused, he would
\nhave replied to the notice field under Section 138 of
\nthe Negotiable Instruments Act; he would have insisted
\non summoning the witnesses whom he proposed to examine
\nby issuing witness summons and he would not have
\ndeclined the offer of examining himself and lead
\nevidence after his statement under Section 313 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
25. It is clear that the accused at the stage of
\nappeal is now trying to set up a new case. The
\naffidavit of respondent No. 2 dated 23.1.2003 makes
\nreference to the declaration of the Accused Yogendra
\nBhagatram Sachdev dated 23rd August 1994 filed in Suit
\nNo. 3978 of 2002 stating that the entire shareholding
\nof Reliance Silicon India Ltd. Is in the name of the
\napplicant. This indicates that the shares which
\nbelonged to respondent No. 2 have been duly transferred
\nto the name of the applicant-accused. Thus no case
\nhas been made out by the applicant-accused to allow
\nhim to examine himself or lead evidence in his defence
\nat the stage of Appeal. It is clearly an attempt to
\nimprove on the defence, if not to set up a anew
\ndefence altogether. This Court in exercise of the
\njurisdiction under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973, as clearly laid down in various
\ndecisions of the Apex Court, is required to exercise
\nits discretion with circumspection and caution and
\nmust disallow any such application if the power under
\nSection 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
\nsought to be misused or abused. In the circumstances,
\nthe application must fail. The application is
\nrejected and disposed of accordingly. The learned
\nJudge hearing the appeal will not be influenced by any
\nof the observations made above.\n<\/p>\n
26. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this
\norder duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this
\nCourt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri … on 7 February, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) ALD Cri 21, III (2003) BC 158, 2003 BomCR Cri Author: A Aguiar Bench: A Aguiar JUDGMENT A.S. Aguiar, J. 1. By this application, presumably under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri ... on 7 February, 2003 - 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\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri ... on 7 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-28T23:55:45+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri … on 7 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T23:55:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4125,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri ... on 7 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T23:55:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri … on 7 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri ... on 7 February, 2003 - 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\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri ... on 7 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-28T23:55:45+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri … on 7 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T23:55:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003"},"wordCount":4125,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003","name":"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri ... on 7 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T23:55:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-bhagatram-sachdev-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-shri-on-7-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri … on 7 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/180637","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=180637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}