{"id":3237,"date":"2011-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-02-18T18:11:48","modified_gmt":"2017-02-18T12:41:48","slug":"union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar<\/div>\n
                                                       REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n\n             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1883      OF 2011\n\n      (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6114 OF 2011)\n\n\n\n\n\nUnion of India                            ...    Appellant \n\n\n\n\n\n                     Vs.\n\n\n\n\n\nHassan Ali Khan & Anr.                    ...    Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The   Special   Leave   Petition   out   of   which   this <\/p>\n
Appeal   arises   has   been   filed   against   the   judgment <\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
and   final   order   dated   12th  August,   2011,   passed   by <\/p>\n
the   Bombay   High   Court   in   Crl.   Bail   Application <\/p>\n
No.994 of 2011, whereby the High Court granted bail <\/p>\n
to   the   Respondent   No.1,   Hassan   Ali   Khan,   in <\/p>\n
connection   with   Special   Case   No.1   of   2011,   wherein <\/p>\n
the Respondent No.1 is the Accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The   allegation   against   the   Respondent   No.1   and <\/p>\n
the   other   accused   is   that   they   have   committed   an <\/p>\n
offence   punishable   under   Section   4   of   the <\/p>\n
Prevention         of         Money         Laundering         Act,         2002, <\/p>\n
hereinafter referred to as `the PML Act’.  The said <\/p>\n
case   has   been   registered   on   the   basis   of   a <\/p>\n
complaint filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate <\/p>\n
of   Enforcement,   Ministry   of   Finance,   Department   of <\/p>\n
Revenue,  Government  of  India,  on  8th  January,  2007, <\/p>\n
on the basis of Enforcement Case Information Report <\/p>\n
No.02\/MZO\/07   based   on   certain   information   and <\/p>\n
documents   received   from   the   Income   Tax   Department.\n<\/p>\n
                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
On the said date, the Income Tax Department carried <\/p>\n
out a search in the premises owned and\/or possessed <\/p>\n
by  the  Respondent  No.1  and  a  sum  of  Rs.88,05,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
in cash was found in his residence at Peddar Road, <\/p>\n
Mumbai,   and   was   seized.   A   number   of   imported <\/p>\n
watches   and   some   jewellery   were   also   found   and <\/p>\n
seized during the search.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The   search   also   revealed   that   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
No.1   had   purchased   an   expensive   car,   worth   about <\/p>\n
Rs.60   lakhs,   from   one   Anil   Shankar   of   Bangalore <\/p>\n
through   one   Sheshadari   and   that   he   had   paid   till <\/p>\n
then   a   sum   of   Rs.46   lakhs   towards   purchase   of   the <\/p>\n
said car.  It also appears that the documents which <\/p>\n
were   recovered   by   the   Income   Tax   Department <\/p>\n
contained   several   transfer   instructions   said   to <\/p>\n
have   been   issued   by   the   Respondent   No.1   for <\/p>\n
transfer   of   various   amounts   to   different   persons <\/p>\n
from   the   bank   accounts   held   by   him   outside   India.\n<\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
The  said  amounts  forming  the  subject  matter  of  the <\/p>\n
instructions issued by the Respondent No.1 ran into <\/p>\n
billions   of   dollars.   The   Income   Tax   Department <\/p>\n
assessed   the   total   income   of   the   Respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
for   the   Assessment   Years   2001-02,   2006-07   and <\/p>\n
2007-08   as   Rs.110,412,68,85,303\/-.   Furthermore, <\/p>\n
during   the   investigation,   the   Directorate   of <\/p>\n
Enforcement   also   obtained   a   document   said   to   have <\/p>\n
been   signed   by   the   Respondent   No.1   on   29th  June, <\/p>\n
2003, which was notarized by one Mr. Nicolas Ronald <\/p>\n
Rathbone   Smith,   Notary   Public   of   London,   on   30th <\/p>\n
June, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
5.     Further,   an   investigation   was   conducted   under <\/p>\n
the         Foreign         Exchange         Management         Act,         1999, <\/p>\n
hereafter referred to as `FEMA’. Show-cause notices <\/p>\n
were   issued   to   the   Respondent   No.1   for   alleged <\/p>\n
violation of Sections 3A and 4 of FEMA for dealing <\/p>\n
in   and   acquiring   and   holding   foreign   exchange   to <\/p>\n
                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
the   extent   of   US$   80,004,53,000,   equivalent   to <\/p>\n
Rs.36,000   crores   approximately   in   Indian   currency, <\/p>\n
in  his  account  with  the  Union  Bank  of  Switzerland, <\/p>\n
AG, Zurich, Switzerland.\n<\/p>\n
6.      Inquiries   also   revealed   that   Shri   Hassan   Ali <\/p>\n
Khan   had   obtained   at   least   three   Passports   in   his <\/p>\n
name   by   submitting   false   documents,   making   false <\/p>\n
statements   and   by   suppressing   the   fact   that   he <\/p>\n
already had a Passport.   In addition to the above, <\/p>\n
it   was   also   indicated   that   investigations   had <\/p>\n
revealed   that   he   had   sold   a   diamond   from   the <\/p>\n
collection of the Nizam of Hyderabad and had routed <\/p>\n
the   sale   proceeds   through   his   account   in   Sarasin <\/p>\n
Bank in Basel, Switzerland, to the Barclays Bank in <\/p>\n
the United Kingdom.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Based         on         the         aforesaid         material,         the <\/p>\n
Directorate   of   Enforcement,   Mumbai   Zonal   Office, <\/p>\n
arrested   the   Respondent   No.1   on   7th  March,   2011, <\/p>\n
                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
and, thereafter, he was produced before the Special <\/p>\n
Judge,   PMLA,   Mumbai,   on   8th  March,   2011,   and   was <\/p>\n
remanded   in   custody.   Subsequently,   by   an   order <\/p>\n
dated   11th  March,   2011,   the   Special   Judge,   PMLA, <\/p>\n
rejected   the   prayer   made   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
Directorate   of   Enforcement   for   remand   of   the <\/p>\n
Respondent  No.1  to  its  custody  and  released  him  on <\/p>\n
bail.     However,   since   a   Public   Interest   Litigation <\/p>\n
was  pending  in  this  Court  in  which  the  Directorate <\/p>\n
of Enforcement was required to file a status report <\/p>\n
in   respect   of   the   investigations   carried   out   in <\/p>\n
connection   with   the   case,   the   fact   that   the <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1   had   been   released   on   bail   was <\/p>\n
brought to the notice of this Court and this Court <\/p>\n
stayed   the   operation   of   the   bail   order   and <\/p>\n
authorized   the   detention   of   the   Respondent   No.1   in <\/p>\n
custody, initially for a period of four days.   The <\/p>\n
Union   of   India   thereupon   filed   Special   Leave <\/p>\n
Petition   (Crl.)   No.2455   of   2011   and   upon   observing <\/p>\n
                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
that   the   material   made   available   on   record   prima <\/p>\n
facie discloses the commission of an offence by the <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1   punishable   under   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
the PML Act, this Court vide order dated 29th March, <\/p>\n
2011, disposed of the appeal as well as the Special <\/p>\n
Leave   Petition   and   set   aside   the   order   dated   11th <\/p>\n
March,   2011,   of   the   Special   Judge,   PMLA,   Mumbai, <\/p>\n
and directed that the Respondent No.1 be taken into <\/p>\n
custody.        Thereafter,   the   Respondent   No.1   was <\/p>\n
remanded   into   custody   from   time   to   time   and   the <\/p>\n
complaint   came   to   be   filed   on   6th  May,   2011.   A <\/p>\n
further   prayer   for   bail   was   thereafter   made   on <\/p>\n
behalf of the Respondent No.1 on 1st July, 2011, but <\/p>\n
the  same  was  dismissed  by  the  Special  Judge,  PMLA, <\/p>\n
Mumbai, on the same day.\n<\/p>\n
8.    The   said   order   of   the   Special   Judge,   PMLA, <\/p>\n
Mumbai,   rejecting   the   Respondent   No.1’s   prayer   for <\/p>\n
bail was challenged before the Bombay High Court in <\/p>\n
                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
Bail Application No.994 dated 2nd  July, 2011.   After <\/p>\n
a   contested   hearing,   the   Bombay   High   Court   by   its <\/p>\n
order   dated   12th  August,   2011,   granted   bail   to   the <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1   and   the   said   order   is   the   subject <\/p>\n
matter of the present proceedings before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Learned  Additional Solicitor  General, Mr.  Haren <\/p>\n
P.   Raval,   appearing   for   the   Union   of   India, <\/p>\n
submitted   that   the   High   Court   failed   to   appreciate <\/p>\n
the   astronomical   amounts   of   foreign   exchange   dealt <\/p>\n
with by the Respondent No.1, for which there was no <\/p>\n
accounting   and   in   respect   whereof   the   Income   Tax <\/p>\n
Department   had   for   the   Assessment   years   2001-02   to <\/p>\n
2007-08         assessed         the            total           income                as <\/p>\n
Rs.110,412,68,85,303\/-.               The            learned         ASG         also <\/p>\n
submitted   that   transfer   of   the   huge   sums   from   one <\/p>\n
bank   to   another   was   one   of   the   methods   adopted   by <\/p>\n
persons   involved   in   money-laundering   to   cover   the <\/p>\n
trail   of   the   monies   which   were   the   proceeds   of <\/p>\n
                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
crime. The learned ASG contended that the large sums <\/p>\n
of unaccounted money, with which the Respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
had   been   dealing,   attracted   the   attention   of   the <\/p>\n
Revenue   Department   and   on   investigation   conducted <\/p>\n
under   the   Foreign   Exchange   Management   Act,   1959, <\/p>\n
(FEMA),   show   cause   notices   were   issued   to   the <\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 for alleged violation of Sections 3A <\/p>\n
and   4   thereof   for   acquiring   and   holding   foreign <\/p>\n
exchange and dealing with the same to the extent of <\/p>\n
US$ 80,004,53,000, equivalent to Rs.36,000\/- crores, <\/p>\n
approximately,   in   Indian   currency,   in   his   account <\/p>\n
with   the   Union   Bank   of   Switzerland,   AG,   Zurich, <\/p>\n
Switzerland.\n<\/p>\n
10. Mr.   Raval   submitted   that   the   Respondent   No.1, <\/p>\n
Shri   Hassan   Ali   Khan,   used   the   different   passports <\/p>\n
which he had acquired by submitting false documents, <\/p>\n
to open bank accounts in foreign countries to engage <\/p>\n
in   the   laundering   of   tainted   money   which   brought <\/p>\n
                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
such   transactions   squarely   within   the   scope   and <\/p>\n
ambit of Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.   Mr. Raval <\/p>\n
submitted   that   Section   3   of   the   aforesaid   Act   by <\/p>\n
itself   was   an   offence   since   it   provides   that   any <\/p>\n
person   directly   or   indirectly   attempting   to   indulge <\/p>\n
in or knowingly assisting or knowingly being a party <\/p>\n
or   actually   involved   in   any   process   or   activity <\/p>\n
connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting <\/p>\n
it   as   untainted   property,   would   be   guilty   of   the <\/p>\n
offence   of   money-laundering.           The   learned   ASG <\/p>\n
submitted that the key expressions used in Section 3 <\/p>\n
are   “proceeds   of   crime”   and   “projecting   it   as   an <\/p>\n
untainted   property”.     In   other   words,   in   order   to <\/p>\n
prove   an   offence   of   money-laundering,   it   has   to   be <\/p>\n
established   that   the   monies   involved   are   the <\/p>\n
proceeds   of   crime   and   having   full   knowledge   of   the <\/p>\n
same, the person concerned projects it as untainted <\/p>\n
property.     The   process   undertaken   in   doing   so, <\/p>\n
amounts to be offence of money-laundering.\n<\/p>\n
                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
11. In this connection, the learned ASG referred to <\/p>\n
Section   2(u)   of   the   PML   Act,   which   describes <\/p>\n
“proceeds of crime” to mean any property derived or <\/p>\n
obtained, directly or indirectly by any person as a <\/p>\n
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled <\/p>\n
offence   or   the   value   of   any   such   property.     He, <\/p>\n
thereafter, referred to the definition of “scheduled <\/p>\n
offence”   in   Section   2(y)   of   the   above   Act   to   mean <\/p>\n
(i)   the   offences   specified   under   Part   A   of   the <\/p>\n
Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part <\/p>\n
B   of   the   Schedule   if   the   total   value   involved   in <\/p>\n
such offences amounted to Rs.30 lakhs or more.\n<\/p>\n
12. The   learned   ASG   submitted   that   the   enormous <\/p>\n
sums   of   money   held   by   Shri   Hassan   Ali   Khan   in <\/p>\n
foreign   accounts   in   Switzerland,   United   Kingdom   and <\/p>\n
Indonesia   and   the   transactions   in   respect   thereof, <\/p>\n
prima   facie   indicated   the   involvement   of   the <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1   in   dealing   with   proceeds   of   crime <\/p>\n
                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
and projecting the same as untainted property, which <\/p>\n
was sufficient to attract the provisions of Section <\/p>\n
3   of   the   PML   Act,   2002.     The   learned   ASG   submitted <\/p>\n
that   under   Section   24   of   the   aforesaid   Act,   when   a <\/p>\n
person   is   accused   of   having   committed   an   offence <\/p>\n
under   Section   3,   the   burden   of   proving   that   the <\/p>\n
monies   involved   were   neither   proceeds   of   crime   nor <\/p>\n
untainted property, is on the accused. It was urged <\/p>\n
that   once   a   definite   allegation   had   been   made <\/p>\n
against   Shri   Hassan   Ali   Khan   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
documents   seized,   that   the   monies   in   his   various <\/p>\n
accounts   were   the   proceeds   of   crime,   the   burden   of <\/p>\n
proving   that   the   money   involved   was   neither   the <\/p>\n
proceeds of crime nor untainted, shifted to him and <\/p>\n
it was upto him to prove the contrary.   The learned <\/p>\n
ASG   submitted   that   Shri   Hassan   Ali   Khan   had   failed <\/p>\n
to   discharge   the   said   burden   and   hence   the   large <\/p>\n
sums   of   money   in   the   several   accounts   of   the <\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 would have to be treated as tainted <\/p>\n
                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
property,   until   proved   otherwise.     The   learned   ASG <\/p>\n
submitted that the Respondent No.1 had himself made <\/p>\n
certain statements which were recorded under Section <\/p>\n
50 of the PML Act, parts whereof were not hit by the <\/p>\n
provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.    The learned ASG also referred to the provisions <\/p>\n
of   Section   45   of   the   aforesaid   Act   which   make <\/p>\n
offences   under   the   said   Act   cognizable   and   non-\n<\/p>\n
bailable and also provides that notwithstanding the <\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   no <\/p>\n
person  accused  of  an  offence  punishable  for  a  term <\/p>\n
of imprisonment of more than three years under Part <\/p>\n
A of the Schedule to the Act, is to be released on <\/p>\n
bail   or   on   his   own   bond,   unless   the   Public <\/p>\n
Prosecutor   has   been   given   an   opportunity   to   oppose <\/p>\n
the   application   for   such   release   and   where   the <\/p>\n
Public   Prosecutor   opposes   the   application,   the <\/p>\n
Court   is   satisfied   that   there   are   reasonable <\/p>\n
                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
grounds   for   believing   that   the   accused   is   not <\/p>\n
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to <\/p>\n
commit   any   offence   while   on   bail.   The   learned   ASG <\/p>\n
submitted   that   an   exception   had   been   made   for <\/p>\n
persons   under   the   age   of   16   years   or   a   woman   or   a <\/p>\n
person who is sick or infirm.\n<\/p>\n
14.    Referring to Part A of the Schedule to the PML <\/p>\n
Act,   the   learned   ASG   submitted   that   the   same   had <\/p>\n
been   divided   into   paragraphs   1   and   2.              While <\/p>\n
paragraph   1   deals   with   offences   under   the   Indian <\/p>\n
Penal   Code   under   Sections   121   and   121-A   thereof, <\/p>\n
paragraph   2   deals   with   offences   under   the   Narcotic <\/p>\n
Drugs   &   Psychotropic   Substances   Act,   1985.     The <\/p>\n
learned ASG submitted that, on the other hand, Para <\/p>\n
B   is   divided   into   five   paragraphs.   Paragraph   1 <\/p>\n
deals   with   offences   under   the   Indian   Penal   Code, <\/p>\n
while   paragraph   2   deals   with   offences   under   the <\/p>\n
Arms   Act,   1959.     Paragraph   3   deals   with   offences <\/p>\n
                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
under   the   Wild   Life   (Protection)   Act,   1972, <\/p>\n
paragraph   4   deals   with   offences   under   the   Immoral <\/p>\n
Traffic   (Prevention)   Act,   1956,   and   paragraph   5 <\/p>\n
deals   with   offences   under   the   Prevention   of <\/p>\n
Corruption   Act,   1988.     The   learned   ASG   submitted <\/p>\n
that the facts of the case attracted the provisions <\/p>\n
of paragraph 1 of Part A of the Schedule, since the <\/p>\n
money   acquired   by   Shri   Hassan   Ali   Khan,   besides <\/p>\n
being the proceeds of crime, is also connected with <\/p>\n
transactions   involving   the   international   arms <\/p>\n
dealer,   Adnan   Khashoggi.   The   learned   ASG   submitted <\/p>\n
that   the   same   became   evident   from   the   notarized <\/p>\n
document which had been obtained by the Directorate <\/p>\n
of   Enforcement   during   the   course   of   investigation <\/p>\n
which had been signed by the Respondent No.1 on 29th <\/p>\n
June,  2003,  at  London  and  notarized  by  Mr.  Nicolas <\/p>\n
Ronald   Rathbone   Smith,   Notary   Public   of   London, <\/p>\n
England, on 30th  June, 2003.   It was also submitted <\/p>\n
that the said document certified the genuineness of <\/p>\n
                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
the   signature   of   the   Respondent   No.1   and   also <\/p>\n
mentioned   his   Indian   Passport   No.   Z-1069986.     The <\/p>\n
learned   ASG   further   contended   that   the   said <\/p>\n
notarized   document   also   referred   to   Dr.   Peter <\/p>\n
Wielly, who was a link between Mr. Adnan Khashoggi, <\/p>\n
and   one   Mr.   Retro   Hartmann   on   whose   introduction <\/p>\n
the   Respondent   No.1   opened   an   account   at   UBS, <\/p>\n
Singapore,   and   was   also   linked   with   Mr.   Kashinath <\/p>\n
Tapuriah.     The   learned   ASG   submitted   that   there <\/p>\n
were other materials to show the involvement of Dr. <\/p>\n
Wielly   in   the   various   transactions   of   the <\/p>\n
Respondent No.1, Hassan Ali Khan.\n<\/p>\n
15.    Further   submissions   on   behalf   of   the   Appellant <\/p>\n
were   advanced   by   Mr.   A.   Mariarputham,   learned <\/p>\n
Senior   Advocate,   who   referred   to   the   purported <\/p>\n
theft   of   the   jewellery   of   the   Nizam   of   Hyderabad <\/p>\n
and the sale of the same by the Respondent No.1, on <\/p>\n
                               17<\/span><\/p>\n
account   whereof   US$   700,000   had   been   deposited   by <\/p>\n
the Respondent No.1 in the Barclays Bank in London.\n<\/p>\n
16.    Mr.   Mariarpurtham   then   submitted   that   although <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   had   relied   on   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
Section   167(2)   Cr.P.C.   in   granting   bail   to   the <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1,   the   said   provisions   were   not <\/p>\n
attracted   to   the   facts   of   this   case   since   charge <\/p>\n
sheet   had   already   been   filed   within   the   statutory <\/p>\n
period   and   the   High   Court   could   not,   therefore, <\/p>\n
have   granted   statutory   bail   to   the   Respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
on the ground that it had been submitted on behalf <\/p>\n
of the Appellant that it would still take some time <\/p>\n
for   the   Appellant   to   commence   the   trial.     Mr. <\/p>\n
Mariarputham   submitted   that   while   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
No.1   had   been   arrested   on   7th  March,   2011   and   had <\/p>\n
been produced before the Special Judge and remanded <\/p>\n
to custody on 8th  March, 2011, the charge sheet had <\/p>\n
been   filed   on   6th  May,   2011   within   the   prescribed <\/p>\n
                                     18<\/span><\/p>\n
period of 60 days.   It was submitted that the High <\/p>\n
Court   had   wrongly   interpreted   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
Section   167(2)   Cr.P.C.   in   granting   bail   to   the <\/p>\n
Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
17.    In   support   of   his   submissions,   the   learned <\/p>\n
counsel referred to the Constitution Bench decision <\/p>\n
of this Court in Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, <\/p>\n
Bombay (II) [(1994) 5 SCC 410], wherein it was held <\/p>\n
that   the   indefeasible   right   of   an   accused   to   be <\/p>\n
released  on  bail  by  virtue  of  Section  20(4)(bb)  of <\/p>\n
the         Terrorist         and          Disruptive         Activities <\/p>\n
(Prevention)   Act,   1987,   was   enforceable   only   prior <\/p>\n
to the filing of the challan and it did not survive <\/p>\n
or   remain   enforceable   on   the   challan   being   filed, <\/p>\n
if   not   already   availed   of.     Their   Lordships   held <\/p>\n
further   that   if   the   right   to   grant   of   statutory <\/p>\n
bail   had   not   been   enforced   till   the   filing   of   the <\/p>\n
challan,   then   there   was   no   question   of   its <\/p>\n
                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
enforcement thereafter, since it stood extinguished <\/p>\n
the   moment   the   challan   was   filed   because   Section <\/p>\n
167(2)   Cr.P.C.   ceased   to   have   any   application.\n<\/p>\n
Reference was also made to the decision of a Three <\/p>\n
Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Uday  Mohanlal  Acharya <\/p>\n
Vs.     State   of   Maharashtra     [(2001)   5   SCC   453], <\/p>\n
wherein the scope of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the <\/p>\n
proviso   thereto   fell   for   consideration   and   it   was <\/p>\n
the   majority   view   that   an   accused   had   an <\/p>\n
indefeasible   right   to   be   released   on   bail   when <\/p>\n
investigation is not completed within the specified <\/p>\n
period   and   that   for   availing   of   such   right   the <\/p>\n
accused   was   only   required   to   file   an   application <\/p>\n
before   the   Magistrate   seeking   release   on   bail <\/p>\n
alleging  that  no  challan  had  been  filed  within  the <\/p>\n
period   prescribed   and   if   he   was   prepared   to   offer <\/p>\n
bail   on   being   directed   by   the   Magistrate,   the <\/p>\n
Magistrate   was   under   an   obligation   to   dispose   of <\/p>\n
the said application and even if in the meantime a <\/p>\n
                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
charge-sheet had been filed, the right to statutory <\/p>\n
bail   would   not   be   affected.   It   was,   however, <\/p>\n
clarified   that   if   despite   the   direction   to   furnish <\/p>\n
bail, the accused failed to do so, his right to be <\/p>\n
released on bail would stand extinguished.\n<\/p>\n
18.    It   was,   therefore,   submitted   that   the   Bombay <\/p>\n
High  Court  had  granted  bail  to  the  Respondent  No.1 <\/p>\n
on   an   incorrect   interpretation   of   the   law   and   the <\/p>\n
said   order   granting   bail   was,   therefore,   liable   to <\/p>\n
be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
19.    Appearing   for   the   Respondent   No.1,   Hassan   Ali <\/p>\n
Khan,   learned   counsel,   Shri   Ishwari   Prasad   A.\n<\/p>\n
Bagaria,   firstly   contended   that   an   offence   which <\/p>\n
did   not   form   part   of   the   scheduled   offences <\/p>\n
referred to in Section 45 of the PML Act would not <\/p>\n
attract   the   provisions   of   Section   3   of   the   said <\/p>\n
Act.  It was submitted that whatever be the amounts <\/p>\n
involved   and   even   if   the   same   had   been   unlawfully <\/p>\n
                                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
procured,   the   same   might   attract   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
the   Income   Tax   Act   or   FEMA,   but   that   would   not <\/p>\n
satisfy   the   two   ingredients   of   Section   3   which <\/p>\n
entails  that  not  only  should  the  money  in  question <\/p>\n
be the proceeds of crime, but the same had also to <\/p>\n
be   projected   as   untainted   property.     Mr.   Bagaria <\/p>\n
submitted   that   in   the   instant   case   all   that   has <\/p>\n
been   disclosed   against   the   Respondent   No.1   is   that <\/p>\n
he dealt with large sums of money, even in foreign <\/p>\n
exchange   and   operated   bank   accounts   from   different <\/p>\n
countries,   which   in   itself   would   not   indicate   that <\/p>\n
the  monies  in  question  were  the  proceeds  of  crime.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Bagaria also submitted that at no stage has it <\/p>\n
been   shown   that   the   said   amounts   lying   in   the <\/p>\n
accounts of the Respondent No.1 in Switzerland, the <\/p>\n
United   Kingdom   and   Indonesia   had   been   projected   as <\/p>\n
untainted   money.              Furthermore,   as   far   as   the <\/p>\n
allegation   regarding   the   theft   of   the   Nizam’s <\/p>\n
jewellery         is         concerned,         except         for         mere <\/p>\n
                                22<\/span><\/p>\n
allegations,   there   was   no   material   in   support   of <\/p>\n
such submission in the face of the case made out by <\/p>\n
the   Respondent   No.1   that   he   had   brokered   the   sale <\/p>\n
of some portions of the jewellery for which he had <\/p>\n
received   a   commission   of   US$30,000   which   he   had <\/p>\n
spent in Dubai.\n<\/p>\n
20.    Mr.   Bagaria   submitted   that   in   the   complaint, <\/p>\n
reference  had  been  made  in  paragraph  13  thereof  to <\/p>\n
“scheduled   offences”   which   have   been   set   out   in <\/p>\n
sub-paragraphs   13.1   to   13.5.     Mr.   Bagaria   pointed <\/p>\n
out   that   the   offences   indicated   related   to   alleged <\/p>\n
offences   under   the   provisions   of   the   Indian   Penal <\/p>\n
Code,   the   Passport   Act,   1967   and   the   Antiquities <\/p>\n
and   Art   Treasures   Act,   1972,   which   do   not   come <\/p>\n
either   under   Part   A   or   Part   B   of   the   Schedule   to <\/p>\n
the   PML   Act,   2002,   except   for   the   offences   under <\/p>\n
the   Indian   Penal   Code,   the   sections   whereof,   which <\/p>\n
have   been   included   in   paragraph   1   of   Part   B,   are <\/p>\n
                                23<\/span><\/p>\n
not   attracted   to   the   facts   of   this   case.     Mr. <\/p>\n
Bagaria   submitted   that   as   a   result,   none   of   the <\/p>\n
offences   mentioned   as   scheduled   offences   in   the <\/p>\n
charge-sheet   were   covered   by   the   Schedule   to   the <\/p>\n
PML   Act,   2002,   and   could   at   best   be   treated   as <\/p>\n
offences   under   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   the   Passport <\/p>\n
Act   and   the   Antiquities   and   Art   Treasures   Act, <\/p>\n
1972.  On the question of the alleged absconsion of <\/p>\n
the Respondent No.1, Mr. Bagaria submitted that the <\/p>\n
said   Respondent   had   not   gone   to   Singapore   on   his <\/p>\n
own   volition,   but   had   there   been   taken   by   one <\/p>\n
Amalendu   Kumar   Pandey   and   Shri   Tapuriah.     Shri <\/p>\n
Pandey   was   subsequently   made   a   witness   and   Shri <\/p>\n
Tapuriah   was   made   a   co-accused   with   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
No.1.\n<\/p>\n
21.    Mr.   Bagaria   also   contended   that   once   bail   had <\/p>\n
been granted, even if the special leave petition is <\/p>\n
maintainable,   the   power   to   cancel   grant   of   such <\/p>\n
                                    24<\/span><\/p>\n
bail   lies   with   the   High   Court   or   the   Court   of <\/p>\n
Sessions         under         Section         439(2)         Cr.P.C.         and, <\/p>\n
consequently,   all   the   principles   laid   down   by   this <\/p>\n
Court   relating   to   cancellation   of   bail,   would   have <\/p>\n
to   be   considered   before   the   order   granting   bail <\/p>\n
could   be   cancelled.     Mr.   Bagaria   submitted   that <\/p>\n
even  though  the  offences  were  alleged  to  have  been <\/p>\n
committed by the Respondent No.1 as far back as in <\/p>\n
the   year   2007,   till   he   was   arrested   on   7th  May, <\/p>\n
2011,   there   had   been   no   allegation   that   he   had   in <\/p>\n
any   manner   interfered   with   the   investigation   or <\/p>\n
tampered   with   any   of   the   witnesses.     Mr.   Bagaria <\/p>\n
submitted   that   even   the   apprehension   expressed   on <\/p>\n
behalf   of   the   appellant   that   there   was   a <\/p>\n
possibility   of   the   Respondent   No.1   absconding   to   a <\/p>\n
foreign   country   on   being   released   on   bail,   was <\/p>\n
without   any   basis,   since   such   attempts,   if   at   all <\/p>\n
made,   could   be   secured   by   taking   recourse   to <\/p>\n
various   measures.     Mr.   Bagaria   submitted   that   such <\/p>\n
                               25<\/span><\/p>\n
a submission could not be the reason for cancelling <\/p>\n
the   bail   which   had   already   been   granted   to   the <\/p>\n
Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
22.    Mr.   Bagaria   submitted   that   in   the   absence   of <\/p>\n
any   provisions   in   the   PML   Act   that   the   provision <\/p>\n
thereof   would   have   retrospective   effect,   the <\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   PML   Act   could   not   also   be   made <\/p>\n
applicable   to   the   Respondent   No.1.     Mr.   Bagaria <\/p>\n
submitted   that   once   it   is   accepted   that   the   PML <\/p>\n
Act,  2002,  would  not  apply  to  the  Respondent  No.1, <\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 45 thereof would also not <\/p>\n
apply   to   the   Respondent’s   case   and   his   further <\/p>\n
detention would be unlawful.  Mr. Bagaria concluded <\/p>\n
on   the   note   that,   in   any   event,   the   PML   Act   had <\/p>\n
been   introduced   in   the   Lok   Sabha   on   4th  August, <\/p>\n
1998,   and   all   the   offences   alleged   to   have   been <\/p>\n
committed   by   the   Respondent   No.1,   were   long   prior <\/p>\n
to the said date.\n<\/p>\n
                              26<\/span><\/p>\n
23.    Having   carefully   considered   the   submissions <\/p>\n
made   on   behalf   of   the   respective   parties   and   the <\/p>\n
enormous amounts of money which the Respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
had been handling through his various bank accounts <\/p>\n
and   the   contents   of   the   note   signed   by   the <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1   and   notarized   in   London,   this   case <\/p>\n
has   to   be   treated   a   little   differently   from   other <\/p>\n
cases of similar nature. It is true that at present <\/p>\n
there is only a nebulous link between the huge sums <\/p>\n
of   money   handled   by   the   Respondent   No.1   and   any <\/p>\n
arms   deal   or   intended   arms   deals,   there   is   no <\/p>\n
attempt   on   the   part   of   the   Respondent   No.1   to <\/p>\n
disclose   the   source   of   the   large   sums   of   money <\/p>\n
handled by him.   There is no denying the fact that <\/p>\n
allegations   have   been   made   that   the   said   monies <\/p>\n
were   the   proceeds   of   crime   and   by   depositing   the <\/p>\n
same  in  his  bank  accounts,  the  Respondent  No.1  had <\/p>\n
attempted   to   project   the   same   as   untainted   money.\n<\/p>\n
The   said   allegations   may   not   ultimately   be <\/p>\n
                                          27<\/span><\/p>\n
established,   but   having   been   made,   the   burden   of <\/p>\n
proof that the said monies were not the proceeds of <\/p>\n
crime   and   were   not,   therefore,   tainted   shifted   to <\/p>\n
the   Respondent   No.1   under   Section   24   of   the   PML <\/p>\n
Act,   2002.     For   the   sake   of   reference,   Section   24 <\/p>\n
is extracted hereinbelow :-\n<\/p>\n
       “24. Burden   of   proof.  –   When   a   person   is <\/p>\n
       accused   of   having   committed   the   offence <\/p>\n
       under   Section   3,   the   burden   of   proving <\/p>\n
       that   proceeds   of   crime   are   in   tainted <\/p>\n
       property shall be on the accused.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
24.    The   High   Court   having   proceeded   on   the   basis <\/p>\n
that the attempt made by the prosecution to link up <\/p>\n
the acquisition by the Respondent No.1 of different <\/p>\n
Passports   with   the   operation   of   the   foreign   bank <\/p>\n
accounts         by         the         said         Respondent,         was         not <\/p>\n
believable,   failed   to   focus   on   the   other   parts   of <\/p>\n
the   prosecution   case.   It   is   true   that   having   a <\/p>\n
foreign   bank   account   and   also   having   sizeable <\/p>\n
amounts   of   money   deposited   therein   does   not  ipso  <\/p>\n
                               28<\/span><\/p>\n
facto  indicate   the   commission   of   an   offence   under <\/p>\n
the   PML   Act,   2002.     However,   when   there   are   other <\/p>\n
surrounding   circumstances   which   reveal   that   there <\/p>\n
were   doubts   about   the   origin   of   the   accounts   and <\/p>\n
the   monies   deposited   therein,   the   same   principles <\/p>\n
would not apply. The deposit of US$ 700,000 in the <\/p>\n
Barclays   Bank   account   of   the   Respondent   No.1   has <\/p>\n
not been denied.  On the other hand, the allegation <\/p>\n
is   that   the   said   amount   was   the   proceeds   of   the <\/p>\n
sale  of  diamond  jewellery  which  is  alleged  to  have <\/p>\n
been   stolen   from   the   collection   of   the   Nizam   of <\/p>\n
Hyderabad.     In   fact,   on   behalf   of   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
No.1   it   has   been   submitted   that   in   respect   of   the <\/p>\n
said  deal,  the  Respondent  No.1  had  received  by  way <\/p>\n
of   commission   a   sum   of   US$   30,000   which   he   had <\/p>\n
spent in Dubai.\n<\/p>\n
25.    Although,   at   this   stage,   we   are   also   not <\/p>\n
prepared to accept the convoluted link attempted to <\/p>\n
                              29<\/span><\/p>\n
be  established  by  the  learned  ASG  with  the  opening <\/p>\n
and   operation   of   the   bank   accounts   of   the <\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1   in   the   Union   Bank   of   Switzerland, <\/p>\n
AG,   Zurich,   Switzerland,   the   amounts   in   the   said <\/p>\n
bank   account   have   not   been   sought   to   be   explained <\/p>\n
by the Respondent No.1.   We cannot also ignore the <\/p>\n
fact   that   the   total   income   of   the   Respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
for   the   assessment   years   2001-02   to   2007-08   has <\/p>\n
been   assessed   at   Rs.110,412,68,85,303\/-   by   the <\/p>\n
Income Tax Department and in terms of Section 24 of <\/p>\n
the PML Act, the Respondent No.1 had not been able <\/p>\n
to   establish   that   the   same   were   neither   the <\/p>\n
proceeds   of   crime   nor   untainted   property.           In <\/p>\n
addition to the above is the other factor involving <\/p>\n
the   notarized   document   in   which   the   name   of   Adnan <\/p>\n
Khashoggi figures.\n<\/p>\n
26.    Lastly, the manner in which the Respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
had procured three different passports in his name, <\/p>\n
                                      30<\/span><\/p>\n
after   his   original   passport   was   directed   to   be <\/p>\n
deposited,   lends   support   to   the   apprehension   that, <\/p>\n
if   released   on   bail,   the   Respondent   No.1   may <\/p>\n
abscond.\n<\/p>\n
27.     As   far   as   Mr.   Bagaria’s   submissions   regarding <\/p>\n
Section   439(2)   Cr.P.C.   are   concerned,   we   cannot <\/p>\n
ignore   the   distinction   between   an   application   for <\/p>\n
cancellation   of   bail   and   an   appeal   preferred <\/p>\n
against   an   order   granting   bail.     The   two   stand   on <\/p>\n
different           footings.         While         the         ground         for <\/p>\n
cancellation   of   bail   would   relate   to   post-bail <\/p>\n
incidents, indicating misuse of the said privilege, <\/p>\n
an   appeal   against   an   order   granting   bail   would <\/p>\n
question   the   very   legality   of   the   order   passed.\n<\/p>\n
This   difference   was   explained   by   this   Court   in <\/p>\n
State   of   U.P.  Vs.  Amarmani   Tripathi  [(2005)   8   SCC <\/p>\n
21].\n<\/p>\n
                                31<\/span><\/p>\n
28.    Taking   a   different   view   of   the   circumstances <\/p>\n
which are peculiar to this case and in the light of <\/p>\n
what  has  been  indicated  hereinabove,  we  are  of  the <\/p>\n
view   that   the   order   of   the   High   Court   needs   to   be <\/p>\n
interfered with.  We, accordingly, allow the appeal <\/p>\n
and   set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   of   the   High <\/p>\n
Court   impugned   in   this   appeal   and   cancel   the   bail <\/p>\n
granted to the Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
                                      ………………………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                      ………………………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI<\/p>\n
DATED: 30.09.2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1883 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6114 OF 2011) Union of India … Appellant Vs. Hassan […]<\/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-3237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-18T12:41:48+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T12:41:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4321,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T12:41:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-18T12:41:48+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T12:41:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011"},"wordCount":4321,"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\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011","name":"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T12:41:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-hassan-ali-khan-and-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Hassan Ali Khan And Anr on 30 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/3237","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=3237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3237\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}