9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons involved in the crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling that they can get away with any crime which tarnish the image not only of the investigating agency but judicial system as well. Once investigation fails, Court will face with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due to external pressure and guilty gets away from the clutches of law. More and more demands are now coming before the Courts for its monitoring of investigation relating to crimes committed by influential persons and persons who have political influence, with the apprehension that they could derail the investigation. Courts in public interest sometime have to take such a course in the larger public interest. This Court has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of Court monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for that Court to take cognizance of the offence and dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed - Writ Petition (C) No. 548 of 2012 With Writ Petition (C) No. 550, 551, 552 of 2012, 17 of 2013 And I.A. Nos. 59, 61, 63 and 68 In Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2013 - G. S. Singhvi And K. S. Radhakrishnan, JJ. JUDGMENT K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are, in these cases, called upon to examine the question whether two orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, while monitoring the investigation of 2G related cases, are liable to be recalled, de hors the rights guaranteed to the Petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India, if aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum case. 2. Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in which the abovementioned orders have been passed, was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by special leave, praying for a Court monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or by a Special Investigating Team into what was described as the 2G Spectr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Team to investigate what the appellants have described as 2G Spectrum Scam because the Government of India has, keeping in view the law laid down in Vineet Narain s case and others passed in other cases, agreed for a Court monitored investigation. 5. This Court, with a view to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated investigation by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, gave the following directions vide its order dated 16.12.2010: (i) The CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into various issues high-lighted in the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to the director, CBI vide letter dated 12.10.2009 and the report of the CAG, who have prima facie found serious irregularities in the grant of licences to 122 applicants, majority of whom are said to be ineligible, the blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences and huge loss to the public exchequer running into several thousand crores. The CBI should also probe how licences were granted to large number of ineligible applicants and who was responsible for the same and why the TRAI and the DoT did not take action against those licensees who sold their stake/equities for many thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India, it was pointed out, had written to the Law Minister on the issue of creation of separate Special Court for dealing with the cases relating to 2G Scam and, for the said purpose, the Law Minister, in turn, had written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court seeking nomination of a Special Court for the said purpose. Learned Attorney General submitted before this Court on 16.03.2011 that the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi had conveyed its decision to nominate Shri O.P. Saini, an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, as the Special Judge to take up the trial of cases relating to what has been described as 2G Scam. The Court was also informed that two separate notifications would be issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 3(1) the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment of the Special Court to exclusively try the offences relating to 2G Scam and other related offences. Following that, two notifications dated 28.03.2011 were published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on Monday, the 28th March, 2011. 8. The CBI submitted before this Court on 01.04.2011 that a notification had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the larger public interest involved and the necessity of a proper investigation and also with the ultimate object of unearthing the crime. 12. Counsel appearing for the CBI suggested to this Court, on 11.4.2011, the name of Shri U.U. Lalit, senior advocate, for the conduct of the criminal prosecution in the case on behalf of the CBI as well as the Directorate of Enforcement and the Court on that date inter alia ordered as follows: We also make it clear that any objection about appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or his assistant advocates or any prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the Trial can be made only before this Court and no other Court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. All these directions are given by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case. 13. We found, in spite of the order passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 that no Court should entertain any prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the trial, large number of writ petitions were seen filed before the Delhi High Court praying f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut has been effectively curtailed by the impugned orders passed by this Court. Learned senior counsel also submitted that this Court exercising powers under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, has the power to only monitor the investigation and once the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court should leave the matter to the trial court safeguarding the rights of parties in questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the trial Court in appropriate Forums. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan (VIII) and Another v. Union of India and others (2006) 6 SCC 613 and Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India and Another (1996) 2 SCC 199. 17. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel, submitted that right to fair trial is a right guaranteed to the parties under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned order has the effect of negating those rights by shutting out all remedies available to the parties under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to move the High Court. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o supervise or investigate the trial proceedings. On the other hand, this Court only ensured that the progress of the trial be not impeded and the trial should go on day-to-day basis. Learned senior counsel also submitted that this Court has reserved its powers to entertain any challenge against the orders passed by the Special Judge under Articles 136, 32 as well as Article 142 of the Constitution and hence, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. 21. We may, at the very outset, point out that CBI as well as the Enforcement Directorate is yet to complete the investigation of the cases relating to 2G Scam and the case which is being tried by the Special Judge is only one among them, wherein the chargesheet has been filed and the trial is in progress. This Court, taking into consideration the width and ambit of the investigation which even spreads overseas and the larger public interest involved, passed the orders impugned, reserving the right of all, including the accused persons, to move this Court if their prayer would amount to staying or impeding the progress of the trial. In case they have any grievance against the orders passed by the Special Judge during trial, they ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss, but it is reported to be substantial. CVC also conducted an enquiry under Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003 and noticed grave irregularities in the grant of licences. CVC, on 12.10.2009, had forwarded the enquiry report to that effect to the Directorate of CBI. 24. The nation and the people of this country are seriously concerned with the outcome of cases involving larger public interest, like one concerning 2G and this Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, has got the duty and obligation to see that the larger public interest and the interest of the nation is preserved and protected. When larger public interest is involved, it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court to assure judicial legitimacy and accountability. Public interest demands timely resolution of cases relating to 2G Scam. Prolonged litigation undermines the public confidence and weakens the democracy and rule of law. 25. The Parliament, in its wisdom, has also noticed the necessity of early disposal of cases relating to bribery and corruption. Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reflects the will of the Parliament that a Special Judge shall hold the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s monitoring of investigation relating to crimes committed by influential persons and persons who have political influence, with the apprehension that they could derail the investigation. Courts in public interest sometime have to take such a course in the larger public interest. That burden this Court has discharged in various cases like Vineet Narayan s case and Gujarat Communal Riot s case, etc. This Court has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of Court monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for that Court to take cognizance of the offence and deal with the matter. But, so far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings. 28. We also, therefore, find no basis in the contention of the petitioners that the orders dated 11.4.2011 and 9.11.2012 have the effect of monitoring the trial proceedings. No Court, other than the Court seized with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
