1997 (9) TMI 613 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged use of unfair means in the Indian Forest Service Examination.
2. Filing and acceptance of the closure report by the CBI.
3. Non-issuance of notice to the UPSC before accepting the final report.
4. Request for reinvestigation by the UPSC.
5. Jurisdiction and procedural errors by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge.

Summary:

Alleged Use of Unfair Means:
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducted the Indian Forest Service Examination in 1992. Respondent No.1 was accused of using unfair means in collusion with the supervisor at the Urdu-Hall sub-centre in Hyderabad. The UPSC filed a complaint with the CBI, which registered a case against the respondents u/s 120-B, 420, 381, 468, and 478 IPC.

Filing and Acceptance of the Closure Report:
The CBI filed a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. seeking closure of the case. The Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the report multiple times due to procedural deficiencies, including the lack of notice to the complainant (UPSC). Eventually, the CBI resubmitted the report, and the Magistrate accepted it on March 16, 1995, without providing an opportunity for the UPSC to object.

Non-Issuance of Notice:
The UPSC was not informed by the Magistrate about the acceptance of the final report, which is a procedural requirement as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr. The omission to issue notice to the UPSC before accepting the final report vitiated the order of the court.

Request for Reinvestigation:
The UPSC requested reinvestigation, highlighting six vital points that were not addressed by the CBI. The CBI did not inform the Magistrate about this request when resubmitting the closure report. The Magistrate and the Sessions Judge both failed to consider this request and the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which allows for further investigation.

Jurisdiction and Procedural Errors:
The Magistrate and the Sessions Judge erred in their jurisdiction by not issuing notice to the UPSC and by not considering the request for further investigation. The Sessions Judge also made factual errors regarding the issuance of notice and the filing of objections by the UPSC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Magistrate dated March 16, 1995, and November 4, 1995, as well as the order of the Sessions Judge dated March 8, 1996. The case was remitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate for disposal in accordance with the law. The Magistrate was directed to issue directions u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. to the CBI for further investigation, to be conducted by an officer other than the one who filed the closure report. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.