1973 (3) TMI 146 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the investigating officer.
2. Cognizability of the offences and the necessity of sanction under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Delay in proceedings and alleged harassment of the accused.
4. Joint trial of the businessman with the Army officers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Investigating Officer:
The High Court quashed the charges on the ground that the officer who investigated the case was not competent. The investigating officer, an Inspector of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, had obtained the order of the First Class Magistrate of Tezpur. The High Court held that as the offences were committed at both Tezpur and Gauhati, authorization from the First Class Magistrate of Gauhati was also required. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Magistrate who makes the order under Section 5A should have territorial jurisdiction over the place where any part of the ingredients of the offence took place, which was satisfied in this case. The Supreme Court found no substance in the High Court's doubt about the genuineness of the Magistrate's order and emphasized that it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to thoroughly investigate and provide a categorical finding on the matter.

2. Cognizability of the Offences and Necessity of Sanction under Section 196A:
The High Court held that the offences being non-cognizable required sanction under Section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that offences under Sections 161, 165, and 165A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are cognizable offences. The argument that these offences are non-cognizable when investigated by officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was rejected. The Supreme Court emphasized that the classification of offences as cognizable or non-cognizable should be consistent, irrespective of the rank of the investigating officer. The Court referred to various High Court decisions supporting this view and concluded that no sanction under Section 196A was necessary.

3. Delay in Proceedings and Alleged Harassment of the Accused:
The High Court quashed the charges due to the undue delay in proceedings, considering it harassment and an abuse of the court process. The Supreme Court noted that the accused themselves contributed significantly to the delay by taking nearly three years to move the High Court for quashing the charges. The Supreme Court found no merit in the argument that the proceedings should be quashed due to delay and emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the case by the Special Judge.

4. Joint Trial of the Businessman with the Army Officers:
It was argued that the businessman could not be tried along with the two Army officers. The Supreme Court referred to Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952 and Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow for the joint trial of persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction. The Court cited the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimalla Subbaih & Anr., which supported the joint trial of public servants and private individuals involved in the same conspiracy. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no objection to the businessman being tried along with the Army officers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The Special Judge was directed to proceed with the cases and dispose of them expeditiously, considering the long pendency of the matter. The appeals were thus allowed, and the proceedings before the Special Judge were to continue.