9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 692 - SC - Indian LawsScam involving the appointment of Panchayat Secretaries - irregularities in the selection process - Allegations against Former Minister of the State for taking bribe - Whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence? - FIR lodged by the Vigilance Department of the State for Commission of offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 120B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - State Government to handover the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). HELD THAT - Lodging of a FIR by CBI is governed by a manual. It may hold a preliminary inquiry. A prima facie case may be held to have been established only on completion of a preliminary enquiry. A bare perusal of the FIR lodged at the instance of the Vigilance Officer shows that the same was general in nature. One of the several allegations contained therein referred to was that irregularities have been committed in the matter of recruitment of Panchayat Secretaries. No detail, however, was furnished. All the persons involved were not named. What types of irregularities have been committed were not stated. In an ordinary case, we might have accepted the submission of Mr. Rao that the High Court should not direct CBI to investigate into a particular offence. The offence, however, is not ordinary in nature. It involved investigation into the allegations of commission of fraud in a systematic manner. It had a wide ramification as a former Minister of the State is said to be involved. The second FIR lodged by the CBI, however, was on a wider canvass. It was lodged after holding a detailed preliminary inquiry. CBI collected a large number of materials. It had also recorded the statements of a large number of persons. Whereas the first FIR dated 14.06.2002, thus, contained the misdeeds of individuals, the second one depicts a crime committed in course of selection process of Panchayat Secretaries involving a large number of officers. It may be true that in both the FIRs Kahlon was named. He was considered to be the prime accused. But, it is one thing to say that he acted in his individual capacity and it is another thing to say that he conspired with a large number of persons to facilitate commission of crime by him as a result whereof all of them had made unlawful gains. Instant case, in our opinion, stands on a better footing vis- -vis Ram Lal Narang 1979 (1) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT , in the sense that whereas the first FIR did not make any allegation as regards existence of a conspiracy, the second FIR did. The canvass of two FIRs is absolutely different. The numbers of accused in both the FIRs are also different. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. If lodging of the second FIR is legally permissible, only because the same has been done at the instance of the High Court could not lead this Court to arrive at a conclusion that its direction in that behalf was wholly without jurisdiction. It will bear repetition to state that law as it stands permits the High Court and this Court to direct investigation made by the CBI. As, it is also recognised by the Central Government, as would appear from the provisions of the CBI Manual referred to hereinbefore. We must, however, not lose sight of the fact that before the High Court it was the State Government who stated that it would like to get the scam investigated by the CBI. The direction was issued only in view of the said offer and not dehors the same. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals. In view of the fact that a chargesheet has been filed on the basis of the first FIR and it is stated that two witnesses had also been examined, we would direct the ld Trial Judge to segregate that portion of the trial which has any bearing with the scam relating to the appointment of the Panchayat Secretaries. Appellants, in the other appeals, who had been cited as witnesses therein should not be allowed to be examined except with their consent. All the materials collected by the investigating officer pertaining to the said scam shall be transferred to the Court of Sub-Judge dealing with the CBI matters forthwith so as to enable it to hear that part of the case either independently or together with the chargesheet which may be submitted by the CBI before it. These directions are issued for doing complete justice to the parties and in terms of the decision of this Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2008 (3) TMI 734 - SUPREME COURT , whereupon Mr. Rao himself placed strong reliance. As the investigation is complete, the CBI may file chargesheet before a court having appropriate jurisdiction. Appeals are dismissed with directions.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of High Court's direction for CBI investigation after charge sheet submission. 2. Validity of second FIR by CBI on the same cause of action. 3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for directing CBI investigation. 4. Applicability of Section 173(8) of CrPC for further investigation by CBI. 5. Role of State's consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 6. Fair investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of High Court's Direction for CBI Investigation After Charge Sheet Submission: The appellants contended that the High Court acted illegally by directing a fresh investigation by the CBI after a charge sheet had already been submitted and cognizance taken. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's direction was based on the need for a thorough and unbiased investigation due to the serious allegations against a former Minister and the systematic nature of the fraud. The Court held that the High Court was justified in seeking a fair investigation to maintain public order and justice, emphasizing that the State has the ultimate authority to entrust investigations to specialized agencies. 2. Validity of Second FIR by CBI on the Same Cause of Action: The appellants argued that a second FIR for the same cause of action was impermissible. The Supreme Court differentiated between the general nature of the first FIR by the Vigilance Department and the detailed allegations of conspiracy in the second FIR by the CBI. The Court held that the second FIR was valid as it uncovered a larger conspiracy involving multiple officials, which was not addressed in the first FIR. The Court cited precedents where subsequent FIRs were allowed when new facts or broader conspiracies were discovered. 3. Jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 226 for Directing CBI Investigation: The appellants challenged the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a CBI investigation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's power to order such investigations in public interest litigations, especially when the State itself agreed to the CBI probe. The Court emphasized that the High Court's direction was within its jurisdiction to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, particularly in cases involving significant public interest and potential political influence. 4. Applicability of Section 173(8) of CrPC for Further Investigation by CBI: The appellants contended that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not allow for further investigation by a central agency after a charge sheet has been filed. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 173(8) permits further investigation, and the State's supervisory role under the Police Act allows it to direct such investigations by specialized agencies like the CBI. The Court highlighted that the CBI's involvement was necessary due to the complexity and scale of the alleged scam. 5. Role of State's Consent Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: The appellants argued that the State's consent for CBI investigation was invalid after the charge sheet submission. The Supreme Court noted that the State's consent under Section 6 of the Act was valid and necessary for the CBI to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court observed that the High Court's direction for CBI investigation was based on the State's agreement and the need for an independent probe, thereby validating the State's consent. 6. Fair Investigation and Trial Under Article 21 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental right to a fair investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the State's obligation to maintain law and order and ensure justice for crime victims. It upheld the High Court's direction for a CBI investigation to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased inquiry into the allegations, thus protecting the rights of both the accused and the victims. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's direction for a CBI investigation. It recognized the validity of the second FIR by the CBI, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, and the State's consent for CBI involvement. The Court issued directions to segregate the trial related to the Panchayat Secretaries' scam and allowed the CBI to file a charge sheet before the appropriate court, ensuring a fair and thorough investigation in line with constitutional principles.
|
