9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Effect of violation of the Rules of Natural Justice on the order. 2. Role of the Special Officer and its impact on the ongoing investigation. 3. Judicial interference in ongoing police investigations. 4. Appropriateness of the High Court's direction in appointing a Special Officer. Summary: 1. Effect of Violation of the Rules of Natural Justice: The Court examined whether the order by the single judge was vitiated due to the violation of natural justice principles. The single judge issued an ex-parte order without giving the State Government a chance to present its case or the investigation records. The Court held that "Borooah, J. should have issued notice to the State Government, afforded a reasonable opportunity to it and its officers who were already in session of the investigation to make a report in regard to the action taken by them." The absence of such a hearing before appointing a Special Officer was deemed inappropriate. 2. Role of the Special Officer: The Court analyzed the role meant to be played by the Special Officer and whether the inquiry would affect the ongoing police investigation. It was noted that "appointment of a Special officer with a direction to inquire into the commission of an offence can only be on the basis that there has not been a proper investigation." The Court found that having multiple channels of investigation would create confusion and prejudice the investigation, thus defeating the purpose of finding the truth. 3. Judicial Interference in Ongoing Police Investigations: The Court reiterated that "investigation is a matter for the police under the scheme of the Code" and judicial interference is generally not warranted. The Court cited previous rulings, including the Privy Council's observation that "the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary." The Court emphasized that the investigation should be left to the police unless there is clear evidence of improper conduct. 4. Appropriateness of the High Court's Direction: The Court concluded that the High Court's direction to appoint a Special Officer was not justified given the facts and circumstances. The materials before the Court did not justify an exception to the rule against judicial interference in ongoing investigations. The Court stated, "We are inclined, on the facts of the case as placed before us, to take the view that the materials placed before the Court did not justify an exception to be made to the rule indicated by this Court and the appointment of a Special officer was not called for at this stage." Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the order of appointment of the Special Officer was set aside. The Court suggested that the Director General of Police, West Bengal, appoint a competent supervisory officer to oversee the investigation. The Court expressed hope that the police would conduct a thorough investigation and uncover the truth. The connected special leave petition required no further orders.
|
