2023 (3) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Transfer of the case to CBI - Illegal detention of petitioner - Smuggling - sale of psychotropic NDPS substance - framing of charges - illegal abduction - HELD THAT - Though there is no inflexible guideline or a straightjacket formula laid down, the power to transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power. It is to be used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts and circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without the intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating agency which has the expertise. Even if the rival contentions are taken note, there exists no issue of public importance which requires to be unearthed by an investigation to be conducted by the CBI. Even from the facts noted and the allegations made against the police, though we are sensitive to the sentiment of the appellants herein, the contention ultimately is that the offence alleged against him to have been committed on 21.10.2020 could not have been committed by him inasmuch as he had been abducted from a different State and was already in the illegal detention of the police on 20.10.2020 itself. This essentially would be the defence in the criminal trial. As already noted, the charges have been framed and the evidence is being tendered. Even though it is contended that the CCTV footage would be relevant to establish the presence of the said four persons in the hotel at Odisha and the same has not been seized by the police, the fact remains that even from the same what is sought to be established is that the said four persons had abducted the appellant No.1. In the course of trial the five persons specified by the appellants would now be available to be crossexamined and any other orders in that regard can be sought in the pending proceedings. That apart, on the other aspects also since the trial is under progress, the appellant No.1 would be entitled to put forth his case when the statement under Section 313 of CrPC is recorded and also he would be entitled to tender evidence if necessary. The case of the appellant is clear as to the reason why he contends that the appellant No.1 cannot be held to have committed the offence as registered in FIR No.232/2020 based on which his name has also been included in an earlier FIR No.255/2020. When the issue raised is only a matter of evidence to be considered in the judicial proceedings to arrive at a conclusion, we are not convinced that in a case of the present nature, a direction to the CBI to hold an investigation would be justified nor is it required at this juncture when the trial in the judicial proceedings has progressed unhindered. Hence to that extent, all contentions of the appellants are kept open. For the very reason, at this stage either quashing or discharge would also not arise. All contentions are left open to be urged before the trial court. There are no reason to interfere with orders impugned in these appeals - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's refusal to transfer investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
2. Validity of the charges framed against the appellant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
3. Allegations of illegal abduction and detention of the appellant by the police.
4. The necessity of a CBI investigation to ensure a fair trial.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Refusal to Transfer Investigation to CBI:
The appellants sought the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, alleging that the local police had illegally abducted and detained appellant No.1, and foisted a false NDPS case against him. The High Court, after considering the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, declined the prayer for referring the investigation to the CBI, noting that such extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle, citing precedents like *State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.* and *Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India*, emphasizing that routine transfers would undermine public confidence in the normal course of law.

2. Validity of the Charges Framed Against the Appellant Under the NDPS Act:
The charges against appellant No.1 were framed under Section 29 read with Sections 22(b), 22(c), 25, and 27 of the NDPS Act, based on FIR No.232/2020 and FIR No.255/2020. The appellant's application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC was dismissed by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act, and this decision was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the charges had been framed and the trial was proceeding, indicating that the appellant's contentions could be put forth in defense during the trial.

3. Allegations of Illegal Abduction and Detention of the Appellant by the Police:
The appellants alleged that appellant No.1 was abducted from a hotel in Odisha by four individuals impersonating police officers and was illegally detained before being falsely implicated in an NDPS case. The respondents denied these allegations, asserting that the appellant was apprehended in Raipur while attempting to sell cocaine. The Supreme Court acknowledged the serious dispute on facts but emphasized that such disputes should be resolved based on evidence during the trial, rather than through affidavits.

4. The Necessity of a CBI Investigation to Ensure a Fair Trial:
The appellants argued that a CBI investigation was necessary to ensure a fair trial, given the alleged illegal actions by the local police. The Supreme Court, however, found no issue of public importance warranting a CBI investigation. The Court noted that the trial was progressing, and the appellants could present their defense and evidence during the trial. The Court also highlighted that if the appellants could establish that appellant No.1 was framed, they would have legal remedies available, including actions for malicious prosecution and compensation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's refusal to transfer the investigation to the CBI and the framing of charges against appellant No.1. The Court emphasized that the appellants' contentions should be addressed during the trial, and any further legal remedies could be pursued based on the trial's outcome. The Court reiterated the principle that the power to transfer investigations is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.