Fair investigation requires both actual impartiality and the appearance of neutrality when agency heads meet accused persons privately.

An investigation must not only be fair but must also appear to be fair, so unexplained private meetings between the head of an investigating agency and accused persons can justify independent scrutiny of whether the inquiry was affected. On the admitted facts, the Court considered the meetings serious enough to require further inquiry into their impact on the investigation, charge sheets, or closure reports, and notice was to issue to the Central Vigilance Commission on the methodology of that inquiry. The Court also rejected criminal action against the petitioners, holding that the disclosed internal material did not show perjury, contempt, or an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the admitted meetings between the CBI Director and accused persons in the coal block allocation cases, without the investigating officer or team being present, justified further inquiry into the fairness of the investigation and the impact on the resultant investigation or charge sheets. (ii) Whether the filing of internal file notes and related material by the petitioners warranted criminal action for perjury, contempt, or violation of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

Issue (i): Whether the admitted meetings between the CBI Director and accused persons in the coal block allocation cases, without the investigating officer or team being present, justified further inquiry into the fairness of the investigation and the impact on the resultant investigation or charge sheets.

Analysis: An investigating agency must not only act fairly but must also appear to act fairly. The admitted contact between the head of the agency and accused persons, without the presence of the investigating officer or team, was considered a matter of serious concern because it could affect confidence in the neutrality of the investigation. The Court was not required at this stage to decide whether the investigation was actually influenced, but the circumstances were sufficient to require an independent inquiry into whether any meetings had affected the investigation, charge sheets, or closure reports.

Conclusion: The Court held that further inquiry was necessary and notice was to be issued to the Central Vigilance Commission for assistance on the methodology of such inquiry.

Issue (ii): Whether the filing of internal file notes and related material by the petitioners warranted criminal action for perjury, contempt, or violation of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the material was brought on record in purported public interest by a whistle blower. It found no intention to mislead the Court and no basis to characterize the disclosures as perjury or contempt. The material was also held not to amount to an official secret for the purpose of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

Conclusion: The request for criminal action against the petitioners was rejected and the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The order declined to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners but required further inquiry into whether the CBI Director's undisclosed meetings with accused persons had affected the fairness of the coal block allocation investigations.

Ratio Decidendi: An investigation must be conducted not only fairly but in a manner that also inspires confidence in its fairness, and unexplained private contact between the investigating agency head and accused persons during an ongoing investigation can justify independent inquiry.

---