9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2066 - SC - Indian LawsTransfer the investigation of a criminal case to the Central Bureau of Investigation - illegal manufacture and sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala, containing Tobacco and/or Nicotine - HELD THAT - The High Court has justly transferred the investigation to CBI after due consideration of all the relevant aspects, which approach is consistent with the settled legal position expounded in the decisions adverted to in the impugned judgment, including the decision in SUBRATA CHATTORAJ VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2014 (10) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT which predicates that transfer of investigation to CBI does not depend on the inadequacy of inquiry/investigation carried out by the State police. We agree with the High Court that the facts of the present case and the nature of crime being investigated warrants CBI investigation - the conclusion reached by the High Court that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is but appropriate that investigation of the crime in question must be entrusted to CBI, is upheld. The transfer of investigation of the crime in question to CBI is no reflection on the efficiency or efficacy of the investigation done by the State Vigilance Commission - SLP dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Previous High Court decisions disregarded. 2. Lack of opportunity for the accused to be heard. 3. Absence of special circumstances for transferring the investigation to CBI. 4. Allegation of political motivation behind the public interest litigation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Previous High Court decisions disregarded: The Petitioner contended that the High Court disregarded previous decisions by its Coordinate Bench, which had denied transferring the investigation to the CBI. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had indeed considered these previous decisions. Specifically, the High Court had found that the earlier petitions lacked specific grounds and material, and it doubted the bona fides of the petitioners. The High Court distinguished the present case by emphasizing the necessity of a fair investigation due to the crime's extensive reach beyond Tamil Nadu and the involvement of high-ranking officials. Thus, the Supreme Court found no merit in the argument that the High Court disregarded binding decisions. 2. Lack of opportunity for the accused to be heard: The Petitioner argued that the judgment was a nullity because he was not given an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court referred to precedents like Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, which established that an accused is not entitled to a hearing at the stage of investigation. The Court held that the absence of the Petitioner as a party in the writ petition did not invalidate the judgment, especially since the transfer of investigation to the CBI was imperative. The Court rejected this ground as an argument of desperation. 3. Absence of special circumstances for transferring the investigation to CBI: The Petitioner claimed that the High Court did not note any special circumstances warranting the transfer of investigation to the CBI. The Supreme Court disagreed, pointing out that the High Court had exhaustively analyzed all relevant aspects, including the inadequacy of the Vigilance Commission's investigation and the need for a comprehensive investigation by a centralized agency like the CBI. The Court cited Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, which supports the transfer of investigation to CBI irrespective of the State police's adequacy. The Court found the High Court's decision consistent with settled legal positions and warranted by the facts. 4. Allegation of political motivation behind the public interest litigation: The Petitioner alleged that the public interest litigation was politically motivated, filed by a member of the Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had addressed this issue, relying on K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police, which recognized the role of political opponents in raising public grievances. The High Court concluded that the petition could not be dismissed on allegations of political vendetta if it genuinely raised concerns about bias in the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court found this ground devoid of merit. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the High Court's decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI. The Court reiterated that this transfer was not a reflection on the efficiency of the State Vigilance Commission but was necessary to ensure a fair and comprehensive investigation.
|
