9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Background of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 2. Whether the CBI acted in contravention of Section 6A(1). 3. Whether the entire trial is vitiated due to an illegal investigation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background of Section 6A of the DSPE Act: Section 6A was introduced into the DSPE Act effective from 11.9.2003 via Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. This provision was a statutory replacement for the Single Directive, a consolidated set of instructions issued to the CBI by various Ministries/Departments, which was first issued in 1969 and amended multiple times. The Single Directive required prior sanction from the Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Department before the CBI could initiate any inquiry or register a case against certain categories of civil servants, particularly decision-making level officers (Joint Secretary or equivalent or above). The Supreme Court quashed the Single Directive in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 226, stating that it was an executive order without statutory force and created an impermissible classification of offenders. Section 6A of the DSPE Act reinstated similar provisions but with statutory backing, requiring prior approval from the Central Government for any inquiry or investigation into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving Central Government employees of the level of Joint Secretary and above. The validity of Section 6A is currently under challenge in Subramanian Swamy v. Director: CBI, pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. 2. Whether the CBI Acted in Contravention of Section 6A(1): Section 6A(1) mandates that the CBI must obtain prior approval from the Central Government before initiating any inquiry or investigation into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above. In this case, the petitioner, a Chief District Medical Officer of the rank of Joint Secretary, was implicated based on a complaint received on 16.12.2004. The CBI registered an FIR and commenced investigation without obtaining the required prior approval from the Central Government. The investigation included laying a trap and subsequent arrest of the petitioner. The CBI argued that no prior approval was necessary under Section 6A(2) for cases involving arrest on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept a bribe. However, the court found that at the time the FIR was registered and the investigation initiated, there was no immediate arrest on the spot. The pre-trap arrangements and subsequent events leading to the petitioner's arrest were pre-planned and did not qualify as an "arrest on the spot" as contemplated under Section 6A(2). Therefore, the investigation was in contravention of Section 6A(1) and was deemed illegal. 3. Whether the Entire Trial is Vitiated Due to an Illegal Investigation: The court examined various precedents to determine the effect of an illegal investigation on the trial. The principles established by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court indicate that: - If an illegal investigation is brought to the notice of the court at the initial stages, the court should not proceed with the trial without addressing the illegality. The court can order reinvestigation to cure the defect. - If the trial proceeds to its conclusion without objection to the illegal investigation, the conviction can only be set aside if it results in a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the illegality of the investigation was brought to the notice of the court at the initial stage through the petitioner's discharge application. The court held that continuing the trial without addressing the illegal investigation would be improper. Therefore, the court directed that the approval of the Central Government be sought for the investigation. If approval is granted, the matter should be re-investigated according to the prescribed procedure, and the material gathered should be placed before the Special Judge for further proceedings. If approval is not granted, the case should be closed. Conclusion: The revision petition was disposed of with directions to seek Central Government approval for the investigation. If approval is granted, re-investigation should be conducted; if not, the case should be closed.
|
