ROMESH CHANDRA ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are somewhat sordid and we shall set out such of them only as are relevant to it. On December 14, 1954, a person whom we shall refer to as X submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Delhi City, to the effect that one of his daughters was being molested and threatened by the appellant and that he had received letters of an objectionable nature from him "for the purpose of blackmailing and extorting money". Some of these letters were shown to the superintendent of Police. The latter sent the report to the Station Officer, Karol Bagh police station, with a direction to register a case under S. 506, Indian Penal Code, and investigate it. The Station Officer investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant. He also took in charge some of the letters said to have been received by X. They contained a reference to photographs of a daughter of X, and at least one of the letters said that a sample photograph was being enclosed with it. These photographs, it appeared subsequently in evidence, were taken in the nude and were of a character which, if made public, would undoubtedly compromise the reputation of the girl as well as of her father. X said in evidence that he first tried to persuade the father and other relatives of the appellant to exercise their influence on the appellant so as to put a stop to the blackmail. He, however, failed to get any sympathetic response from them. In November 1954 he met the appellant and requested him to behave properly; the appellant, however, said that it was his profession to extort money by blackmail through girls and he further threatened that he would circulate the photographs to be relatives of the girl unless "hush money" was paid. The appellant was tried on a charge under S. 506, Indian Penal Code by the learned Magistrate exercising first class powers at Delhi. The learned Magistrate found that the appellant took indecent photographs of the girl by showing false love to her, and threatened X, in letters written to him, with publication of the photographs with intent to extort money from the latter. He accordingly convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. This was on 18-5-1956.

(3.) On 9-6-1956, the appellant preferred an appeal from his conviction and sentence to the Session Judge of Delhi. It appears, however, that on 14-6-1956, Kapur, J. of the Punjab High Court (as he then was) suo motu called for the record of the case on reading a report thereof in a newspaper, and directed the issue of a notice to the appellant to show cause why the sentence should not be enhance. Presumably, this action was taken under the provisions of Ss. 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17-8-1956, the appeal pending before the Sessions Judge of Delhi was transferred to the High Court itself for hearing. We again presume that this order was passed under the provisions of S. 526(1)(e)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; because neither the order dated 14-6-1956, nor the order dated 17-8-1956, have been printed in the paper book and the exact terms of the two orders have not been made available to us. The High Court heard together the appeal and the rule for enhancement. By a judgment pronounced on 21-12-1956, it affirmed the finding of the learned Magistrate, upheld the conviction, dismissed the appeal, and enhanced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment. On or about 10-1-1957, an application was moved on behalf of the appellant for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court in which it was alleged (1) that on the finding of the learned Magistrate affirmed by the High Court, the appellant could only be found guilty of the offence under S. 384 read with S. 511, Indian Penal Code, for which the maximum punishment was 18 months only; (2) that the High Court could not issue a notice for enhancement of the sentence when an appeal from this conviction and sentence was pending before the Sessions Judge; (3) that the order transferring the appeal to the High Court was not validly made and, in any case, it was improperly made without issuing a notice to the appellant; and (4) that the procedure adopted had deprived the appellant of his right of getting first a decision from the court of appeal and then another from the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. By an order dated 14-1-1957, Falshaw, J. of the Punjab High Court gave the necessary certificate. He said in his order that though the grounds mentioned above were not urged before him at the time when the appeal and the rule for enhancement of sentence were heard by him, it appeared to him that the grounds could be legitimately raised and the case was, therefore, a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The present appeal has come before us on that certificate.