9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e crime in question to CBI is no reflection on the efficiency or efficacy of the investigation done by the State Vigilance Commission - SLP dismissed. - Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13817 of 2018 (Diary No. 17180/2018) - - - Dated:- 18-5-2018 - Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ. For Appellant: Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Misha Rohatgi and M. Thangathurai, Advs. For Respondents: P. Wilson, Sr. Adv. and R. Nedumaran, Adv. ORDER A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This special leave petition takes exception to the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 26th April, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 19335 of 2017, whereby the High Court has issued a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of a criminal case concerning the illegal manufacture and sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala, containing Tobacco and/or Nicotine, to the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ). 2. The Petitioner has been named as an Accused in the FIR because of his alleged involvement in the crime under investigation. The Petitioner at the relevant time was posted on deputation as Food Safety Officer in the Food Safety and Drug Administra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised on behalf of the Petitioner. 5. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Wilson, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 14. 6. On a careful consideration of the impugned judgment, we agree with Respondent No. 14 (writ Petitioner) that the High Court has cogitated over all the issues exhaustively and being fully satisfied about the necessity to ensure fair investigation of the crime in question, justly issued a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation to CBI. As regards the first point raised by the Petitioner, we find that the High Court was alive to the fact that the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court had occasion to decide Writ Petition No. 1846 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 12482 of 2017, as can be discerned from the discussion in paragraphs 107 to 122 of the impugned judgment. As regards Writ Petition No. 1846 of 2017, that was filed by one P. Wilson, a lawyer by profession. Indeed, it was filed as public interest litigation to initiate an inquiry/investigation into the allegation of corruption, investigate, prosecute and ferret out the truth regarding the connivanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment in the following words: 141. As observed by K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan, JJ. in K. Kathiresan, supra, the Vigilance Commission headed by the Vigilance Commissioner has extensive powers to curb corruption and initiate action against government servants and servants of public sector undertakings for acceptance of illegal gratification and matters incidental thereto. The State Vigilance Commission might enquire into allegations of corruption against officials of the State Government. The State Vigilance Commission might also conduct a detailed enquiry to fix the responsibility for the loss of the file containing incriminating materials handed over to the then Chief Secretary by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) on 12.8.2016 and ensure that the guilty are brought to book and appropriate action taken in accordance with law. However, investigation by the Vigilance department is from the angle of vigilance. The aim is to detect corruption. The power of the Vigilance Commission to investigate would not extend to an enquiry into the modus operandi of the gutkha mafia, the mode and manner of import from other States, distribution and sale of gutkha and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken by the High Court in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, being a possible view, the ground under consideration is devoid of merit. Suffice it to observe that it is not a case of disregarding the binding decision or precedent of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court. We say so because, in the impugned judgment the decision of the Coordinate Bench has been distinguished. Besides, the question regarding the necessity to ensure a fair and impartial investigation of the crime, whose tentacles were not limited to the State of Tamil Nadu but transcended beyond to other States and may be overseas besides involving high ranking officials of the State as well as the Central Government, has now been directly answered. For instilling confidence in the minds of the victims as well as public at large, the High Court predicated that it was but necessary to entrust the investigation of such a crime to CBI. Viewed thus, there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the High Court in the impugned judgment, for having entrusted the investigation to CBI. 8. As regards the second ground urged by the Petitioner, we find that even this aspect has been duly considered in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investigation to CBI after due consideration of all the relevant aspects, which approach is consistent with the settled legal position expounded in the decisions adverted to in the impugned judgment, including the decision in Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India and Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 768 which predicates that transfer of investigation to CBI does not depend on the inadequacy of inquiry/investigation carried out by the State police. We agree with the High Court that the facts of the present case and the nature of crime being investigated warrants CBI investigation. 11. In the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160 this Court has underscored the imperativeness of ensuring a fair and impartial investigation against any person Accused of commission of cognizable offence as the primary emphasis is on instilling faith in public at large and the investigating agency. The dictum in paragraph 24 and 25 of this reported decision is quite instructive which read thus: 24. Be it noted here that the constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. The purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic. Of course, the suspicion must have some sort of base and foundation and not a figment of one's wild imagination. One may think an impartial investigation would be a nostrum but not doing so would be like playing possum. As has been stated earlier, facts are self-evident and the grieved protagonist, a person belonging to the lower strata. He should not harbour the feeling that he is an orphan under law. 12. Suffice it to observe that we do not intend to deviate from the conclusion reached by the High Court that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is but appropriate that investigation of the crime in question must be entrusted to CBI. 13. Reverting to the last contention that the High Court should have been loath to entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of Respondent No. 14, who happens to be a member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu or that he had pro-actively participated in raising the issue in the Assembly, has also been answered in the impugned judgment. The Court, while entertaining public interest litigation at the instance of Respondent No. 14, has relied upon the dictum in K. Anbazhagan v. Superintende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
