PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. GEORGE WILLIAMS ALIAS VICTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Public Prosecutor has put in this petition under Section 497 (5) and 561-A, Cri. P. C., for cancelling the bail granted by me on 16-5-1950 to one George Williams alias Victor, in Crl. M. P. No. 1076 of 1950 on the file of this Court, in Crl. App. No. 387 of 1950 on the ground that he has misconducted himself and rendered himself liable to rearrest and committal to custody by abusing his release on bail by indulging in the same kind of offence during the period of bail. This person had been convicted in S. C. No. 67 of 1949, by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly division under Section 120(B), Penal Code, read with Section 420, Penal Code, for having conspired with 23 other accused to cheat members of the public by promising to give them two counterfeit five rupee notes for one genuine five rupee note. Of course the genuine notes were taken and the others not given. This accused was held to be the prime mover and ringleader in this huge conspiracy and was sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1500, or in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was granted bail by me, on 16-5-1950, on his bail application protesting his innocence, on his executing a bond for Rs. 1000 with two sureties for Rs. 1000 each. In the present petition, the allegation is that this accused, during the period when he was on bail, went on committing similar offences of cheating people by such promises of giving two counterfeit notes for one genuine note, as those for which he was convicted in S. C. No. 67 of 1949 and that he was arrested and remanded to custody on 24-1-1951 at Shenkottah Railway station when he was found with a suit case containing one bundle of 48 genuine five rupee currency notes, and 15 other bundles of blank white paper cut to the size of five rupee currency notes pasted over either side of the bundle, and 12 other bundles of white paper cut to the size of five rupee currency notes. In S. C. no. 67 of 1949 the modus operandi adopted for cheating was to keep one genuine note on the top and at the bottom of white papers cut to size and asking the dupes to run away with the bundles as the police were arriving and there was no time to count.

(2.) The application by the Public Prosecutor is opposed by Mr. Basi Reddi for the first accused, only on a legal ground, he not disputing the facts alleged by the Public Prosecutor. Mr. Basi Reddi's contention is that once this Court has granted bail to an accused in an appeal under Section 426, Cri. P. C., as was the case where bail was granted to this accused in Cri. M. P. No. 1076 of 1950, it has no power to cancel that bail, whatever the conduct of the person let on bail may be subsequent to the granting of bail, as Section 497 (5), Cri. P. C., will apply only to accused persons who are let on bail by a High Court before conviction and will not apply to persons (who are convicted) granted bail during the pendency of the appeal, and as Section 561-A, Cri. P. C., too will not have any application to bail matters which are wholly governed by Section 497 (5) and Section 426, Cri P. C., as held by the Privy Council. I cannot agree. I am satisfied that the provisions of Section 497 (5), Cri. P. C., read with Section 561-A, Cri. P. C., saving the inherent power of the High Court to give effect to any order under Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, will give it ample powers to deal effectively with such accused persons released on bail pending appeal who, by their continuing to commit the crimes denied in the appeal memorandum render themselves liable to re-arrest and recommittal to custody. It is obvious that provisions similar to those in Section 497 (5) will attach themselves analogously to Section 426, Cri. P. C., bail cases also, in order to prevent abuse of process to Court and to secure the ends of justice.

(3.) Reliance was placed by Mr. Basi Reddi on the Privy Council decision in Jairam Das v. Emperor, 1945 Mad W. N. Cr. 62. I have looked into that ruling, and I do not think that it will support the argument of Mr. Basi Reddi and take away the power of this Court to cancel the bail of a person released pending appeal and recommit the person to custody when he has rendered himself liable for that by reason of his misconduct during the period of bail. All that the Privy Council held in that case was that: