TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds State Agency Investigation Decision, Rejects Transfer to CBI</h1> <h3>Prof. K.V. Rajendran Versus Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal seeking the transfer of investigation from the State agency to the CBI. The Court emphasized the need for rare and ... Prayer for transfer the investigation of his case/complaint to CBI - HELD THAT - the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest and complete investigation”. Constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Issues Involved:1. Transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)2. Allegations of biased and tainted investigation by the State investigating agency3. Legal parameters for transferring investigation to CBI4. Examination of subsequent developments and their impact on the transfer of investigationIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):The appellant, an Associate Professor, sought the transfer of the investigation of his complaint from the State investigating agency to the CBI. The High Court of Madras had previously rejected this request, leading to the current appeal. The appellant alleged that the State investigating agency conducted a biased and tainted investigation, favoring the then Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) involved in the case.2. Allegations of biased and tainted investigation by the State investigating agency:The appellant contended that the State investigating agency's investigation was tainted and biased, favoring the then RDO. He alleged that the SBCID threatened witnesses and recorded their statements under coercion. Despite these allegations, the High Court observed that the investigation had been properly conducted, with 46 witnesses examined and numerous documents filed. The High Court concluded that even if the investigation was shabby, it was not a sufficient ground to change the investigating agency.3. Legal parameters for transferring investigation to CBI:The Supreme Court reiterated the established legal principles for transferring investigations to the CBI. The power to transfer investigations must be exercised sparingly and only in rare and exceptional cases. Such cases include situations where high officials of State authorities are involved, the State police's investigation lacks credibility, or it is necessary to instill public confidence in the impartiality of the investigation. The Court cited several precedents, including Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., and Vineet Narain v. Union of India, to emphasize that the transfer should be considered when it is imperative for a fair, honest, and complete investigation.4. Examination of subsequent developments and their impact on the transfer of investigation:The appellant argued that subsequent developments warranted the transfer of the investigation to the CBI. However, the Supreme Court noted that the case had been ongoing for 15 years, during which the RDO might have been transferred to various districts, and different police officers might have handled the investigation. The Court observed that it was difficult to assume that every police official was influenced by the RDO. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the appellant to approach the High Court for transferring the investigation to the CBI based on subsequent events. However, no significant subsequent developments were presented to warrant such a transfer.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the facts and circumstances of the case did not present special features warranting the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, especially at such a belated stage where the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had already been submitted. The allegations were primarily against the then RDO, and it was unlikely that every police official involved in the investigation acted with malafide intention. The Court found no cogent reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
