9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te-respondent No.1 and the supervisor incharge, after an examination of answer books, answer and certain other documents. It was then stated that respondent No.1 appears to have adopted the same modus-operandi on an earlier occasion too by appearing at the Urdu-Hall sub- centre instead of at the allotted centre for 1993 Civil Services (Preliminary) exam held on June 13, 1993. The UPSC requested the CBI to investigate the case on a priority basis and to intimate the results of the investigation to it. The CBI on receipt of the complaint registered it as complaint No.17/14/93-C.IV and on October 19, 19, 1993, a regular case was registered by the CBI on the basis of the aforesaid complaint being Crime No. 3(S)/93-SIU.II against respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 381, 468 and 478 I.P.C. The investigation was entrusted to Shri T.N. Rao, S.P. It transpires from the record that on September 12, 1994, the CBI filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.p.c. in the court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, before whom the FIR had been lodged, seeking closure of the case. The CBI inspite of the request to it by the UPSC did not inform it about the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was therefore not justified. The UPSC asserted that there was need for reinvestigation because some of the vital points raised in its complaint had not been touched at all by the investigating officer during the investigation. As many as six such points were brought to the notice of the Director, CBI. It was requested that the case be reinvestigated by the CBI at some higher level . This communication was in the nature of a protest petition to the CBI in response to the notice from the CBI to the UPSC dated December 14, 1995 informing it that the CBI had filed closure report of the case before the learned Magistrate. While the UPSC was awaiting further communication from the CBI in that behalf, the CBI it appears resubmitted the closure report on February 24, 1995. On March 16, 1995, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, accepted the final report submitted by the CBI and closed the file without any opportunity being provided to the UPSC to have its say. Labouring under the impression that the CBI would have started further investigation in the case in view of its letter dated January 23, 1995 and oblivious of the fact that the CBI had resubmitted the closure report, the UPSC on Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed its objections to the final report, it could not be now permitted to make any grievance about the acceptance of the final report and that the petition be rejected. The court rejected the petition of the UPSC observing that it has accepted the final report filed by the CBI on March 16, 1995, since the appellant had not filed its objections to the acceptance of the final report and as such it could not complain. Even though the Court, recorded in its order that it had not given any notice to the appellant before accepting the final report filed by the CBI on March 16, 1995 yet in declined to order reinvestigation or further investigation. The Court opined that since an order accepting final report was a judicial order and not an administrative order, therefore, it had no power to review such an order passed by it rightly or wrongly and that the UPSC could file a revision petition seeking appropriate order against the acceptance of final report from the revisional court. The UPSC then filed a revision petition before the 1st additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad on December 11, 1995. Vide order dated March 8, 1996 Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 1995 was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the final report submitted by the CBI and deciding not to take cognizance and drop the proceedings. This omission vitiates the order of the learned court accepting the final report. The issue is no longer res-integra. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh vs. commissioner of Police Anr. 91985) 2 SCC 537 speaking through Bhagwati, J while dealing with a situation arising out of the report being forwarded by an officer-in- charge of a police station to the Magistrate under sub- section 2(i) of Section 173, stating the no offence appears to have been committed, opined that on receipt of such a report the Magistrate can adopt one of the three courses i.e. (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section 3 of Section 156. The bench, dealing with the first option of dropping the proceedings went on to say: There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by he officer-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort on February 24, 1995 before the Magistrate decided to accept the final report submitted by the CBI and close the file on March 16, 1955. It was, to say the least, improper on the part of the investigating officer of the CBI to have withheld a vital document dated January 23, 1995, addressed to the Director, CBI which communication in our view was in the nature of a protest petition , from the learned Magistrate while resubmitting the report on February 24, 1995. In all fairness, the investigating agency should have brought that communication tot he notice of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before resubmitting the final report for its acceptance. The withholding of vital information from the learned Metroplitan Magistrate while resubmitting the final report along with various documents on February 24, 1995, for reasons best known to the investigating officer, has created a doubt in our minds about the fairness on the part of the investigating officer while undertaking the investigations. Had the contents of the communication of the appellant dated January 23, 1995 been brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, the possibility that be may not have agreed to drop the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it to file objections. On facts these observations are incorrect. Neither any notice was issued to the appellant by the Court nor was the appellant ever called upon to file objections to the final report by the Court. Even in the notice issued by the CBI on December 14, 1994 for whatever it is worth, the UPSC was not called upon to file objections, if it so desired. Besides the learned Sessions Judge also failed to consider the effect of withholding by the investigating agency of the objections of the appellant contained it its communication dated January 23, 1995 at the time of resubmission of the closure report in February 1995. The learned Sessions Judge, thus, failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction properly and his order dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant in the established facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. Thus, for what we have said above we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not justified in accepting the final report of the CBI and closing the case without any notice to the appellant and behind its back. The order of the learned Magistrate dated March 16, 1995 closing the case and of November 4, 1995 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
