2003 (7) TMI 744 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows appeals, overturns High Court decision, directs Special Judge to proceed with trial despite procedural lapses.

Union of India (UOI) Versus Prakash P. Hinduja and Ors.

The SC allowed the appeals, overturning the HC's judgment, and instructed the Special Judge to continue with the trial. The SC emphasized that the CBI's ... Validity of the investigation conducted by CBI without reporting to CVC - allegations of failure of the CBI to investigate freely and fairly commission of offences by persons holding high offices - Power of the Government under Section 4 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act ('DSPE Act') - HELD THAT:- On account of the fact that CVC Bill could not be passed by the Rajya Sabha, the functioning of the CVC was being regulated by the Government Resolution dated 4.4.1999 and this nowhere provided for taking any concurrence or approval from the CVC before filing of the charge sheet. The CVC having filed an affidavit stating that investigation report had been submitted to it by the CBI and that it had no role in the filing of the charge-sheet and the conduct of the cases, the plea raised by the accused fell to the ground and the petition filed by him ought to have been dismissed straight away. The High Court committed serious error in not giving due consideration to the counter affidavits filed by the CBI and CVC and especially to the fact that on account of non-passing of the CVC Bill by the Rajya Sabha and lapsing of the Ordinance, the duties and functions of the CVC are to be performed in accordance with the Government of India Resolution dated 5.4.1999, which nowhere provided for taking any kind of a concurrence or approval from the CVC before submission of the charge sheet. As discussed earlier there is no requirement of any sanction by the CVC either under any statute or even under the directions of Vineet Narain and, therefore, the ratio of this case can have no application at all. In para 34 of the judgment the High court has placed reliance on Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate 1974 [1973 (10) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the detention order passed under Maintenance of Internal Security Act was set aside on the finding that one of the grounds communicated to detenu was vague. We fail to understand how the principle laid down in a case where challenge is made to preventive detention can have any application whatsoever to the case in hand. With respect we find the High Court judgment to be quite confusing and self contradictory. In para 18(c) it is observed that 'there is no requirement to seek clearance before charge sheets are filed' and in para 19 it is said that 'the only requirement in this regard is of reporting and the role of the CVC on this would be to give its comments in its annual report.' In para 20 it is said that 'the direct power of review granted to the CVC is only of pending applications for sanction' and 'the CVC is not cast with the role of reviewing as such the steps taken in the course of investigation and thereafter.' In para 21 it is said that 'the duty to report of the steps taken in the course of investigation is not and cannot be equated with the duty to obtain prior approval or consent of any other authority to these steps.' Again in para 24 it is said that 'the contention of the petitioner that a breach of these directions would render the action of the CBI void since the directions are to be rigidly complied with is equally misconceived.' It is further said that 'even the rigid compliance with these directions cannot go beyond the CVC over-viewing CBI's working and the CBI's reporting to the CVC.' The High Court having arriving at the aforesaid findings, the only result which could logically follow was to dismiss the petition. There was absolutely no occasion for allowing the same and quashing the cognizance and further proceedings in the case. In view of the discussion made above the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order dated 10.6.2002 of the High Court is set aside. The learned Special Judge shall proceed with the trial of the case. While framing the charge he shall carefully scrutinise the material on record and other circumstances of the case in accordance with law. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the investigation conducted by CBI without reporting to CVC.2. Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on alleged procedural lapses in investigation.3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's directions in Vineet Narain case regarding CVC's role in overseeing CBI investigations.Summary:1. Validity of the investigation conducted by CBI without reporting to CVC:The Supreme Court examined whether the CBI's failure to report the investigation to the CVC before filing the charge sheet rendered the investigation invalid. The Court held that the statutory provisions governing investigation do not require the CBI to obtain prior approval or consent from the CVC before filing a charge sheet. The directions in Vineet Narain were intended to ensure the CBI's independence and proper functioning, not to create additional rights for the accused or to mandate CVC's approval for filing charge sheets.2. Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on alleged procedural lapses in investigation:The Supreme Court reiterated that the Court cannot interfere with the investigation process, which is the exclusive domain of the investigating agency. The High Court's power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings is limited to cases where the allegations do not constitute an offense, there is an express legal bar to the proceedings, or there is a lack of sanction. The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings based on the alleged procedural lapse of not reporting to the CVC, as this did not affect the competence or jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of the offense.3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's directions in Vineet Narain case regarding CVC's role in overseeing CBI investigations:The Supreme Court clarified that the directions in Vineet Narain were aimed at ensuring the CBI's independence and proper functioning by placing it under the CVC's superintendence. However, these directions did not require the CBI to obtain CVC's approval before filing charge sheets. The High Court misinterpreted the Vineet Narain judgment by equating the duty to report to the CVC with the need for prior approval, which was not the intent of the directions.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the learned Special Judge to proceed with the trial. The Court emphasized that the investigation's validity and the subsequent filing of the charge sheet were not contingent upon CVC's approval, and any procedural lapses in reporting to the CVC did not vitiate the investigation or the trial process.