2022 (5) TMI 1610 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to the preliminary report - violation of the rights of the Appellant-Accused - allegation against the Appellant is that while he was serving as a Minister he is alleged to have misused his powers to influence the tender process and ensured that tenders were awarded to his close aides - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Initiation of the FIR in the present case stems from the writ proceedings before the High Court wherein the State has opted to re-examine the issue in contradiction of their own affidavit and the preliminary report submitted earlier before the High Court stating that commission of cognizable offence had not been made out. It is in this background it is held that the mandate of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of the Appellant-Accused as well as to the principles of natural justice. Viewed from a different angle it must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial as enshrined Under Article 21 of the Constitution. When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the instant case particularly the fact that the High Court had ordered an enquiry and obtained a report without furnishing a copy thereof to the Appellant and unceremoniously closed the writ petition High Court is directed to supply a copy of the report submitted by Ms. R. Ponni Superintendent of Police along with the other documents to the Appellant herein. The appeal is disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of misuse of power by the Appellant.
2. Preliminary enquiry and investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
3. Change in the State Government's stance and subsequent FIR registration.
4. Non-disclosure of the preliminary enquiry report to the Appellant.
5. Legal principles regarding the disclosure of investigation reports and fair trial rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of misuse of power by the Appellant:
The Appellant, a former Cabinet Minister in Tamil Nadu, was accused of misusing his powers to influence the tender process, ensuring that tenders were awarded to his close aides. This allegation was brought forth by a complaint filed by an individual with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, followed by a writ petition seeking a mandamus to register an FIR and constitute an SIT for investigation.

2. Preliminary enquiry and investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption:
The High Court directed that the preliminary enquiry be conducted by Ms. Ponni, IPS, Superintendent of Police, and monitored by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. A status report was produced, and the preliminary enquiry was completed with a final report submitted in a sealed cover. The State Government initially accepted the report, concluding that no cognizable offence was made out, and sought to dispose of the writ petition as infructuous.

3. Change in the State Government's stance and subsequent FIR registration:
A change in the political dispensation led the State Government to recant its earlier decision, citing a CAG report with adverse comments. The High Court allowed time for further investigation, leading to the registration of an FIR against the Appellant and others under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. Non-disclosure of the preliminary enquiry report to the Appellant:
The Appellant sought a copy of the preliminary enquiry report and associated documents, which was denied by the High Court. The High Court dismissed the Appellant's application, stating that the law should take its own course and that the report would be disclosed at the stage contemplated under Section 207 of the CrPC. The Appellant contended that the State had not claimed any privilege over the documents and that FIRs should not be based solely on the CAG report.

5. Legal principles regarding the disclosure of investigation reports and fair trial rights:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court committed a patent error by not taking the matter to its logical conclusion and failing to peruse the preliminary enquiry report. The State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, and the principles of natural justice demanded that the Appellant be given an opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution must be consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the mandate of Section 207 of the CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the Appellant's rights.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to supply a copy of the preliminary enquiry report and associated documents to the Appellant. It restored the writ petition and Crl.O.P. to the High Court's file, directing the High Court to dispose of the cases on their own merit, uninfluenced by any observations made. The Appellant was granted liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the High Court regarding the FIR. The appeal was disposed of on these terms.