9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. - Surya Kant And J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant K Sud, A.S.G., Ms. Praveena Gautam, Adv., Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv., Mr. Amit Sharma B, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv., Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR. For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Suresh Babu, Adv., Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR, Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V T, Adv., Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv., Mr. Navin Suresh, Adv. JUDGMENT J. B. PARDIWALA, J.: 1. Leave granted. 2. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the same those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 1988 Act ) along with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC ). 7. On 24.12.2008, the CBI/ACB filed an application before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, with a prayer to close the proceedings and return the documents for the purpose of regular departmental action against the accused No. 1 (respondent No. 3). The application stated inter alia as follows: After completion of investigation it has come to light that the accused cannot be prosecuted. Hence, Final Report u/s. 173 Cr.PC is being filed which may be accepted. 8. It was further prayed that the documents seized during the course of investigation be returned so that the same could be used in the regular departmental action that may be initiated against the accused No. 1. 9. The aforesaid application filed by the CBI was taken up by the Special Court and the following order dated 29.01.2009 came to be passed: ORDER This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Complainant u/s. 173 Cr.PC praying to close the FIR and to retain the documents collected during the investigation to be used in the Regular Departmental Action against A1 . 1. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the FIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the investigation in RC 27(A)/06. 15. On 13.03.2014, respondent No. 3 filed Crl. O.P. of No. 6371 of 2014 before the Madras High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings related to the summons dated 1.03.2014. The respondent No. 3 stated that he had attended the summons and during the interrogation he was asked to produce documents which were either not in existence or not available with the petitioner or already available with CBI . 16. On 21.03.2014, the CBI filed its counter affidavit to the above referred petition filed by the respondent No. 3, stating specifically that: 3. It is submitted that in the year 2013 CBI received certain information/materials warranting the re-opening of the investigation of this closed case. Accordingly Shri G. Palaniappan, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai filed a petition in the Hon'ble Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai seeking the orders of the said court for reopening of investigation and the Hon'ble Court of PSJ, Chennai had issued order dt. 28.06.2.013 ordering the re-opening investigation of this case. 17. The High Court vide its order dated 11.09.2014 rejected the Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014, holding inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid petitions. 22. On 15.12.2015, the High Court allowed the Crl. O.P. No. 11101 of 2015 and Crl. O.P. No. 15873 of 2015 respectively by a common order, holding inter alia as follows: (i) That on receipt of a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC, the Magistrate has three options either to accept the report and close the case, to disagree with the report and proceed with the case or to order further investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. (ii) That the Magistrate is only empowered to direct further investigation and not to direct a re-investigation/ de-novo investigation . (iii) In terms of the judgment in Vinay Tyagi (supra) no investigation agency is empowered to conduct a fresh, de-novo or reinvestigation once a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC is filed. (iv) The petition seeking re-opening / further investigation was filed after a lapse of 4 years. (v) In order to empower the Magistrate to permit further investigation, something should have been pending before the Magistrate, but no matter was pending as the investigation had already been closed. (vi) The Special Court thus had no power to grant permission to conduct a further investigation. (vii) The judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CBI to re-open the case and undertake further investigation. 28. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 3 (Accused No. 1) had questioned the entire action on the part of the CBI in seeking to re-open the case and undertake further investigation before the High Court by filing Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014 and the High Court by a detailed order had declined to interfere. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014 was binding to another Co-ordinate Bench and same could not have been over-looked or ignored on the ground that while deciding Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014, the attention of the High Court was not drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Vinit Tyagi (supra). Mr. Sud further submitted that it is not that the decision of this Court in Vinit Tyagi (supra) was not considered in the earlier round of the litigation i.e., while deciding Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014 as is evident from para 5 of the order passed by the High Court dated 11.09.2014 in Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014. 29. In such circumstances as referred to above, the learned counsel prays that there being merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lullah ASP/CBI/ACB/Chennai. Upon perusal of the chargesheet which was served on the accused by the Magistrate under Section 207 of the CrPC, it was noticed that the same does not include the order passed by an officer not below the Rank of Superintendent of Police, as mandatorily required under Section 17(Second proviso) of the 1988 Act, conferring powers to Mr. Syed Bazlullah to investigate this case in RC MA 1 2006 A 0027 for an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, which thereon got culminated into the chargesheet in C.C.No.13 of 2015. It was argued that the non-compliance of Section 17(Second proviso) of the 1988 Act is an illegality that vitiates the entire trial. 33. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the following case law: (i) Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762; (ii) Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1; and (iii) Luckose Zachariah alias Zak Nedumchira Luke and Others v. Joseph Joseph and Others reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 241. ANALYSIS 34. Section 169 of the CrPC reads as under: 169. Release of accused when evidence deficient. If, upon an inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. (h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties . 40. Section 173(8) of the CrPC deals with further investigation and supplementary report. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short, the Old Code ), there was no identical provision to that of Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The same is a newly added provision in the CrPC. It was added on the recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report that the right of the police to make further investigation should be statutorily affirmed. 41. In the Old Code, there was no provision prescribing the procedure to be followed by the police for fresh investigation, when fresh facts came to light, upon the submission of the police report and subsequent to taking cognizance by the Magistrate. There was, also, no express provision prohibiting further investigation by the police. 42. The said omission was sought to be supplied for the first time by a twoJudge Bench of the Madras High Court as early as in 1919 in Divakar Singh v. A. Ramamurthi Naidu reported in AIR 1919 Mad 751, where it was observed that: Another contention is put forward that when a report of investigation has been sent in under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of the police to make further investigation should be statutorily affirmed. Accordingly, in the CrPC, Section 173(8), came to be introduced, which statutorily empowered the police to undertake further investigation after submission of the final report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. Conspicuously, it still did not confer such powers on the Magistrate to direct further and/or fresh investigation after submission of the final report by the Police. 47. Section 173(8) of the CrPC may be fragmented or dissected as under: (1) Further investigation can be done in respect of an offence wherein report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate; and (2) During further investigation, the officer-in-charge has power (a) to obtain further evidence, oral or documentary, (b) to forward to the Magistrate, a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed, (3) The provisions of sub sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such further report or reports. Sub section (1) of Section 173 of the CrPC provides that every investigation by the police shall be completed without unnecessary delay and sub section (2) of Section 173 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347, the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. The hands of investigating agency for further investigation should not be tied down on the ground of mere delay. In other words, the mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. Difference between Further Investigation and Re-investigation 51. There is no doubt that further investigation and re-investigation stand altogether on a different footing. In Ramchandran v. R. Udhayakumar and Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 413, this Court has explained the fine distinction between the two relying on its earlier decision in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 223. We quote paras 7 and 8 as under: 7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olice are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Courts to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus. 53. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. and Others reported in (1999) 5 SCC 740, it was held in paras 10 and 11: 10. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC 1791] . The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has the jurisdiction to do so, it would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be for the ends of justice. 55. In Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah and Others reported in (1997) 7 SCC 614, it was held in Para 13: The Magistrate could, thus in exercise of the powers under Section 173(8) CrPC direct the CBI to further investigate the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections raised by the appellant to the investigation and the new report to be submitted by the investigating officer would be governed by sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 CrPC. . 56. This Court in Hasanbhai (supra) held thus: 12. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court as such, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court took cognisance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if as in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied of the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted. 13. In Ram Lal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Peter reported in (2008) 2 SCC 383, this Court held thus: 9. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. Whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not. 59. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441, this Court held as follows: 68. An order of further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 36 thereof stands on a different footing. The power of the investigating officer to make further investigation in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of the Code and at the instance of the State having regard to Section 36 thereof read with Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 should be considered in different contexts. Section 173(8) of the Code is an enabling provision. Only when cognizance of an offence is taken, the learned Magistrate may have some s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... controversy enveloping the evasive issue of further investigation directed by the Magistrate. This Court, speaking through Justice R.F. Nariman, has laid down at Para 38 that: To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complained of, such order is a judicial order. 67. We are at one with the aforesaid submission canvassed on behalf of the accused persons. However, this is not going to make any difference. What is necessary to be examined is as to whether an order passed under Section 190(1) of the CrPC accepting a final report being a judicial order would bar further investigation by the police or the CBI as in the present case, in exercise of the statutory powers under chapter XII of the CrPC? 68. In State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi and Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 1, a complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilara, against the respondents under various sections of the IPC. The gravamen of the allegation was that the respondents had, in pursuance of a conspiracy, transferred some land on the strength of a special power of attorney bearing forged signature. The Magistrate, after perusal of the complaint, directed an investigation to be made as contemplated by Section 156(3) of the CrPC. A case was registered thereafter, by the police and a final report was submitted on 18.07.1981 stating that complaint was false. The report came to be accepted by the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther investigation being made, fresh materials came to light which led to the filing of further report stating that a case had been made out. The aforesaid decision of this Court has been rightly referred to and relied upon by the High Court in its first order dated 11.09.2014. 70. This Court in K. Chandrasekhar (supra) was considering a case, where on the complaint of a Police Inspector, a case was registered by the Kerala Police against the appellants therein for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegation that in collusion with some Indians and foreigners they had committed acts prejudicial to the safety and sovereignty of India. During the investigation, certain other persons (appellants in accompanying appeals) were arrested. Thereafter, a DIG of Police, who was the head of the team conducting the investigation, recommended the case for being investigated by the CBI. Pursuant to such recommendation, the Government of Kerala by a notification dated 02.12.1994 accorded its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, the Act ) for further inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State Government. (Emphasis supplied). Thus, what was held by the Court was that after submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. reinvestigation or fresh investigation is not permissible. However, it has been expressly observed that if any further investigation is to be made, it is the CBI alone which can do so. In other words, further investigation could be carried out, but that the same could be done by the CBI alone as it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State Government and had carried out the investigation and submitted final report in connection therewith. 71. In S. Papaiah (supra) on a complaint made by the UPSC, investigation had been carried out by the CBI and final report was submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom the first information report had been lodged, seeking closure of the case. The CBI in spite of the request made to it by the UPSC did not inform about the filing of the final report seeking closure of the case to the UPSC. The report was returned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as notice had not been issued to the complainant by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not required to review his order. He could have ordered further investigation into the case. It appears that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate overlooked the provisions of Section 173(8) which have been enacted to take care of such like situations also. (Emphasis supplied) 72. After referring to the provisions of Section 173(8) of the CrPC, the Court observed that the Magistrate could, thus, in exercise of the powers under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, direct the CBI to further investigate the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections raised by the UPSC to the investigation and the new report to be submitted by the Investigating Officer would be governed by sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 of the CrPC. The Court held that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law and his order dated 04.11.1995 cannot be sustained. 73. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it appears that though the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation would be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted to the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court regarding the new discovery made by the police during the investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the proceedings merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it. 12. Even otherwise, the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under sub-section (2) of section 173 of a previous occasion. This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code. (Emphasis supplied) 76. Thus, a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions of this Court rendered in cases where final reports (closure reports) had already been submitted and accepted makes the position of law very clear that even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove said decisions are of no help to the petitioner. In the aforesaid decisions, the well settled principle is restated that Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C enables an officer in charge of a Police Station/CBI to carry on further investigation even after a report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C is submitted to the court. The power to further investigation, after filing of final report in court and even after the Magistrate has taken cognizance, is available to the Police in view of the Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Further investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. This is well settled in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013-5-SCC-762 (Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali). The only rider is provided is that it would be desirable that the Police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation as observed in Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwadaha Maharaj Vs. State of AP (AIR-1999-SC-2332). 6. Although sub section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C does not, in specific terms, mention about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der on the petition filed by the Investigating Officer, Inspector, CBI/ACB. It is now clear that sub section (8) of section 173 of Cr.P.C gives power to the Investigating Officer to reopen the investigation in the case in which final report had been submitted earlier and after completing the investigation fresh report has to be submitted before the learned Special Judge under sub section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. Of course, this can be done only on such fresh materials which did not come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, while he was conducting the investigation and in my view, exactly the same situation prevailed in this case. 11. The same view has also been taken in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Aruna Devi and others (1995-SCC-Crl-1) wherein it was held that acceptance of final report by Magistrate does not debar him from taking cognizance of the offence if on further investigation fresh materials come to light. 12. Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no legal bar to the reopening of the investigation of any case in which closure report has been submitted if there are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding, or (3) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding, 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 11. From a cursory reading of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is discernible that after getting a final report under section 173(2) of the said code, the concerned Magistrate is having power, either to take cognizance or to direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation as per section 173(8) of the said code. 12. Even a mere reading of Section 173 of the Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order passed in Criminal Original Petition No.6371 of 2014. In fact, at the time of passing the order in Crl.O.P.No.6371 of 2014, the decision mentioned supra has not been brought to the knowledge of this court. Under the said circumstances, this court has erroneously ratified the permission granted by the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. Therefore, on the basis of the order passed, in Crl.O.P.No.6371 of 2014 by this court, we cannot come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Case, Chennai, is valid in law. Further, it has already been pointed out that the said order has been passed even without power. Since the said order is totally alien to law, the subsequent proceedings are also bad in law. 24. The present petitions have been filed praying to quash the final report filed in Calendar Case No.13 of 2015. Since the permission granted to the respondent for conducting re-investigation or further investigation by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai is totally illegal and since the subsequent proceedings are also entirely bad in law, it is needless to say that the final report filed thereon is also both factu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Benches of this Court have either ignored or bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including the Constitution Benches. These cases are illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for sustaining the system. In Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B. [AIR 1960 SC 936 : (1960) 3 SCR 578] this Court observed : (AIR p. 941, para 19) 19. If one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing, it is the quality of certainty. That quality would totally disappear if Judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling one another's decisions. If one Division Bench of a High Court is unable to distinguish a previous decision of another Division Bench, and holding the view that the earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that view the result would be utter confusion. The position would be equally bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decision of another Single Judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench. In such a case lawyers would not know how to advise their clients and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. 91. We may add that in our constitutional set-up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er investigation, the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. 86. Thus, the assurance of a fair trial is to be the first imperative in the dispensation of justice. [Reference: Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Another v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi reported in (1996) 6 SCC 323]. The need for fair investigation has also been emphasized in Vinay Tyagi (supra) where it was observed as under: 48. What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression fair and proper investigation in criminal jurisprudence? It has a twin purpose: Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law; secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. . 87. Reference may also be placed on the decision in Pooja Pal v. Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135, where the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o under clause (e) of sub section (1) of Section 13 of the 1988 Act shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Thus, from the Second proviso, it is clear that an investigation into the offence referred to in clause (e) of sub section (1) of Section 13 of the 1988 Act even by any police officer enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) or any Police Officer authorized in that behalf by the State Government as per the first proviso, can be undertaken only by an order of the police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. Thus, the Second proviso is in the nature of additional safe guard for the public servant who are accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act against an investigation by a police officer without the knowledge and consent of superior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. A superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for such offence is commenced. It is needless to point-out that, before directing such investigation, the Superinte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
