1984 (5) TMI 273 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Interim injunction restraining investigation, oral applications and appeals interfering with investigation, modification of order by appellate Bench, conditions for respondents 1 and 2, handling of seized documents during investigation, direction on final report submission.

Interim Injunction and Investigation Interference:
The Supreme Court considered the issue of an interim injunction granted by the Calcutta High Court against the investigation of cognizable offences lodged against respondents 1 and 2. The Court highlighted the general principle that interference with police investigation should only occur in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court expressed concerns about the unusual procedure of oral applications and appeals leading to an interim order interfering with the investigation process. The appellate Bench modified the order, vacating the injunction restraining investigation but directing the Investigating Officer not to detain respondents 1 and 2 for more than one hour each day. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for investigations to proceed unhampered by court orders, except under specific conditions.

Conditions for Respondents 1 and 2:
The Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Judicial within a fortnight, surrender, and be taken into judicial custody for appropriate bail. It also addressed the seizure of documents during the investigation, stating that any necessary documents for convening a meeting of the company should be produced before the Chairman for inspection and copying. Respondents 1 and 2 were granted access to inspect the seized documents upon approaching the Investigating Officer.

Submission of Final Report and Directions:
The Supreme Court modified a previous order, stating that the final report at the end of the investigation should be presented to the Court having jurisdiction after obtaining orders and directions from the Supreme Court. However, the direction did not cover interim reports, which could be filed as necessary in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petitions with the aforementioned directions, emphasizing the importance of allowing investigations to proceed without hindrance, except under specified conditions, and ensuring proper handling of seized documents and submission of reports in accordance with the law.