9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 954 - SC - Indian LawsWhether state local police was unable to carry out investigation into the cases and for securing the ends of justice the investigation has to be handed over to the CBI? Whether the investigating officer even of the rank of DSP was not in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully because senior functionaries of the State police and political leaders were to be named and political and administrative compulsions were making it difficult for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the truth?
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of High Court's direction for CBI investigation after charge sheet filing. 2. Distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation. 3. High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of High Court's Direction for CBI Investigation After Charge Sheet Filing: The primary issue was whether the High Court could direct the CBI to conduct an investigation after a charge sheet had already been filed by the police. The petitioner argued that once a charge sheet is filed, the Court's role in monitoring the investigation ends, as per Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226]. The petitioner contended that the High Court had no power to direct a fresh investigation or reinvestigation by the CBI after the charge sheet was filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. This argument was supported by the decision in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 6 SCC 332], which distinguishes between further investigation and reinvestigation, allowing only the former under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Distinction Between Further Investigation and Reinvestigation: The Court noted that sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. allows for further investigation even after a charge sheet is filed, but not for a fresh investigation or reinvestigation. However, it was clarified that these limitations do not apply to the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The inherent powers allow the High Court to order a fresh investigation or reinvestigation if it is necessary to secure the ends of justice, as supported by the decision in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 441]. 3. High Court's Inherent Powers Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: The judgment emphasized that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court's inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court's decision to direct the CBI to investigate was based on its finding that the local police were not in a position to conduct a fair and truthful investigation due to political and administrative pressures. The High Court observed that senior police officers and political leaders were involved, making it difficult for the local police to bring out the truth. This justified the High Court's decision to invoke its inherent powers for a CBI investigation, as seen in the Constitution Bench decision in State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 571]. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the High Court acted within its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to direct a CBI investigation to secure the ends of justice. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the High Court's inherent powers to ensure a fair investigation when local authorities are compromised.
|
