Skip to content


Miss Marie Andre Leclerc Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2646 of 1983 with T.P. (Criminal) No. 55 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC1092; 1983CriLJ1445; 1983(2)Crimes590(SC); 1983(2)SCALE166; (1984)2SCC443
AppellantMiss Marie Andre Leclerc
RespondentState (Delhi Administration) and ors.
Excerpt:
.....[s.b.sinha & h.s. bedi, jj] state corporation under state financial corporations act, 1951 is a state.-- state financial corporations act, 1951 [63/1951]. sections 29, 30 & 31; manner of exercise of powers under the sections taking over of plant and machinery theft of some machineries - held, the corporation, no doubt, is entitled to realise its dues, but it has been conferred with a special statutory power in terms of sections 29 and 31 of the act therefor. such a power on the corp[oration was conferred by an act of parliament, inter alia, keeping in view the fact that it being a statutory authority and, thus, being state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution, will act fairly and reasonably. the entire loan was recalled not only because the appellants were defaulters..........to the court in the form of an affidavit that the petitioner will inform the high commissioner for india in canada every three months commencing from 1.11.1983 about her whereabouts and address in canada and we would also request the high commissioner for india in canada to forward such information to the government of india through the foreigners regional registration officer, delhi. if the petitioner commits any breach of this undertaking a sum of rs. 50,000/-out of the sum of rs. 1,50,000/- (mentioned above) will be liable to be forfeited. there will be liberty to apply.3. the trial of all the accused in the above mentioned courts need not be held up on account of the absence of the petitioner. we may make it clear that we are making this order only in view of the, fact that the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application by the petitioner for permission to go back to Canada on the ground that she is suffering from cancer of the left ovary and she has been advised to take chemotherapy. The report of Dr. Talang who performed the operation of the petitioner at the Moolchand Hospital shows that the cancer is in the secondary stage and she is in a very bad state of health. When the application was made before us yesterday we requested Dr. Dhawan of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to examine the petitioner and to make a report to us. Dr. Dhawan acceded to our request and examined the petitioner. He has made a report to us today. The report confirms that the petitioner is 'sick, thin and endemic and that the positive findings were a mass in the left fornis. The histology slides from the previous operation shows cancer of the left ovary. Dr. Dhawn also states that it was not possible for him to give an independent opinion as to the extent of cancer unless a major operation of the abdomen is done which is not advisable. But, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the finding given by Dr. Telang who performed the operation of the petitioner at the Mool Chand Hospital.

2. We are, therefore, of the view that on humanitarian grounds it is desirable that the petitioner should be permitted to go to Canada which is her home country and where she has her parents and relatives so that she can receive proper treatment and her relations can be by her side. It is also true that the petitioner can obtain treatment for cancer in India as there are facilities for such a treatment but then chemotherapy has to be given as recommended by Dr. Telang. It will be desirable that the parents and other relations of the petitioner in view of the petitioner's state of health are present when chemotherapy is given because it is known that there are cases where chemotherapy has other adverse effects. We would, therefore, permit the petitioner to go to Canada for a period of one year. But at the same time we have to protect the interests of justice because the petitioner is suffering a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder in one case and there two other cases pending against her-one in the state of U.P. and the other in the State of Karnataka. We would, therefore, direct that the petitioner be allowed to go to Canada on condition that she files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to this Court to return to India within one year from the date of her departure from this country. We are informed that the petitioner is on bail in cases which are pending against her in the state of U.P. and the State of Karnataka and as a security for appearance in Courts there lies deposited a sum of Rs. one lakh in the Sessions Court, Varanasi, Rs. 40,000/- in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and Rs. 10,000/-in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, karwad. These three amounts, aggregating to Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lakh and fifty thousand rupees) will also remain as security for the return of the petitioner to India within one year from the date of her departure and in addition personal bonds will be given by Father Allain and Sister Margarete in favour of the Registrar (Judicial Administration) of this Court-each bond being for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- within one week from today and only after such bonds are given, the petitioner will be entitled to leave India. Father Allain and Sister Margarete are present in court and they have given their consent to this arrangement as security for the petitioner's return to India after one year. The petitioner will also give an undertaking to the Court in the form of an affidavit that the petitioner will inform the High Commissioner for India in Canada every three months commencing from 1.11.1983 about her whereabouts and address in Canada and we would also request the High Commissioner for India in Canada to forward such information to the Government of India through the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Delhi. If the petitioner commits any breach of this undertaking a sum of Rs. 50,000/-out of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (mentioned above) will be liable to be forfeited. There will be liberty to apply.

3. The trial of all the accused in the above mentioned courts need not be held up on account of the absence of the petitioner. We may make it clear that we are making this order only in view of the, fact that the petitioner is suffering from cancer which is in the secondary stage and we feel that in circumstances it is necessary for her to be with her parents and relations.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //