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>Court Restricts Actions on Coercion Complaints in Teacher Recruitment Scam, Emphasizes Fair Investigation.</h1> <h3>Soumen Nandy Versus. State of West Bengal & Ors. And Ramesh Malik & Ors. Versus. State of West Benga</h3> The HC addressed complaints by an individual involved in the Primary Teachers' Recruitment Scam against ED and CBI officers, alleging coercion. The court ... Primary Teachers’ Recruitment Scam - whether a person can laugh while his testicles are squeezed is required to be known from medical experts which CBI should do? - HELD THAT:- This court wanted to know from Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing CBI and Mr. Samrat Goswami, learned advocate representing ED, whether the investigating officers in respect of the other scams in this State are also facing same situation, i.e., complaint to the police by some persons against the officers and the police is investigating those complaints and interrogating the officers. Mr. Bhattacharya gave me three names referring to the Coal scam and the names are: Mr. Kapil Raj, Joint Director of ED; Mr. Umesh Kumar, SP of CBI and in respect of the custodial death of one Lalan Sheikh in Bogtui case, one officer not at all even remotely connected with the investigation namely Mr. Sushanta Bhattacharya of CBI. Therefore, it has become a sinister design of some persons to make allegations against the investigating officers of different scams to terrorize them by using the police force which have now come to light in the State and I see this letter of Kuntal Ghosh is also an attempt to terrorize the officers of ED and CBI and to throttle the investigation process and I term it as – very smart action; which cannot be allowed for a fair investigation and for the ends of justice. From today no police station shall lodge any FIR against any complaint made to it in respect of any officer of CBI and ED who are investigating the Educational Recruitment Scam both of West Bengal Central School Service Commission and the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, without the leave of this court. List this matter on 20.04.2023 and will be heard at 12.00 noon. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether police authorities may proceed to investigate or register FIRs on complaints made against officers of investigating agencies (ED/CBI) in respect of the Educational Recruitment Scam without prior leave of the Court. 2. Whether letters/complaints made from custody alleging coercion, torture or other criminality by investigating officers should be given immediate operative effect or whether their effect should be stayed pending judicial scrutiny and investigation. 3. Whether allegations in contemporaneous public statements by third parties and subsequent complaints filed by an accused from custody, insofar as they appear coordinated or derivative, warrant inquiry into possible collusion or mala fide design to intimidate investigating officers and to throttle investigation. 4. What interim protective or investigative measures (including preservation of evidence and directions to investigating agencies) are appropriate to secure the integrity of the investigation and to deal with alleged attempts to terrorize investigating officers. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Police investigations/FIRs against investigating officers: legal framework Legal framework: The Court considered the balance between the ordinary duty of police to investigate cognizable offences and the need to protect ongoing investigations conducted by statutory agencies (ED/CBI) from vexatious or mala fide complaints that may impede or intimidate investigating officers. The judgment exercises the Court's inherent and supervisory jurisdiction to regulate interlocutory processes where continuing criminal investigations and public interest require protection of investigative functioning. Precedent treatment: No earlier precedents were cited or expressly relied upon in the material produced; the Court proceeded on principles of supervisory jurisdiction and necessity to preserve the investigatory process. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found a pattern of complaints lodged against investigating officers in several matters, and specific letters from an accused filed with a police station and with the trial court. The Court concluded these actions, in the factual matrix, were part of a design to terrorize officers and throttle the investigation. Given that such complaints, if acted upon immediately by police, could disrupt and intimidate investigative officers, the Court held that departures from the normal course are justified to prevent misuse of the criminal process to impede an ongoing statutory investigation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court's order that no police station shall lodge any FIR against any complaint made in respect of officers of ED and CBI investigating the relevant scam without leave of the Court is a necessary, operative direction based on supervisory jurisdiction to protect the integrity of the investigation. This constitutes the binding ratio on the issue of interim control over registration of FIRs against investigating officers in the present factual matrix. There is no express precedent overruling or following indicated. Conclusions: The Court directed that police shall not lodge FIRs against complaints alleging misconduct by ED/CBI officers in the relevant investigation without prior leave of the Court, as an interim measure to prevent obstruction of investigation. Issue 2 - Operative effect of letters/complaints made from custody alleging coercion/torture Legal framework: Complaints made by an accused from custody alleging torture or coercion are cognizable and ordinarily require investigation; however, courts may stay the operative effect of such communications pending assessment of authenticity, timing, and possible mala fide purpose, especially where there is a risk of misuse to impede a legitimate investigation. Precedent treatment: The judgment does not cite specific authority; it applies supervisory powers and evaluative scrutiny of the circumstances under which the complaints were made. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the temporal sequence: custodial periods, dates of searches and arrests, dates when the accused first received the prosecution complaint, dates of statements and the timing of the two letters (one to the court, one to the police) filed nearly a month after custody. The Court noted inconsistencies (no contemporaneous complaints while in custody), apparent embellishment in the later letter, and the coincident proximity of a public speech by a third party urging similar allegations. The Court found the contents to be 'foolishly concocted' and to contain exaggerations, and observed that medical and investigative agencies should examine allegations (e.g., whether person could laugh while allegedly tortured), but reserved substantive adjudication pending investigation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court ordered that the letters written by the accused and filed before the court and sent to the police shall not be given effect in any manner until further order. This is an operative, case-specific injunction intended to forestall immediate police action based solely on those letters. Observations about medical assessment and exaggeration are indicia supporting the order and are explanatory rather than standalone ratios. Conclusions: The letters/complaints made from custody were stayed from having operative effect pending further judicial direction and investigatory reports; forensic and investigative evaluation (including medical opinion and examination of CCTV and visitor registers) was directed. Issue 3 - Coordination between public statements and custodial complaints; inquiry into mala fide design Legal framework: The Court assessed whether contemporaneous public rhetoric and subsequent complaints by an accused could be indicative of a coordinated attempt to intimidate investigators or to create a false narrative to protect higher echelons of an alleged criminal enterprise. The framework involves fact-specific inquiry into motive, timing, and corroborative evidence. Precedent treatment: No precedent was invoked; the approach is fact-driven and pragmatic regard to safeguarding investigatory efficacy. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that a public speech on 29.03.2023 asserted pressure to name a particular person; the accused's first complaints were on 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2023, creating a 'matching tune' that raised serious doubt of tacit understanding. The Court emphasized that such apparent coordination, especially where the accused and the public figure share political affiliation, necessitates investigation into possible collusion. The Court characterized the practice of lodging complaints against investigating officers across multiple scams as a 'sinister design' to terrorize officers via police processes, citing additional examples provided by counsel for the investigating agencies. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court directed that the public speech and related aspects 'should also not be outside the investigation' of the investigating agencies and be considered in their inquiries. This is an operative direction to expand investigatory scope to examine possible coordination. Observations about political linkage and the metaphor of investigation as a human body (waist vs. head/heart) are explanatory obiter supporting urgency. Conclusions: The Court required the investigating agencies to examine the public speech and any possible connection to the custodial complaints; such lines of inquiry are necessary to determine whether complaints were part of a scheme to impede investigation. Issue 4 - Interim protective and evidentiary measures: preservation of CCTV, visitor registers, and investigatory reporting Legal framework: Courts may order preservation of evidence and require investigative agencies to make reports to ensure effective inquiry and to prevent destruction or tampering of material evidence. Preservation orders are routine where documentary or electronic evidence is time-sensitive. Precedent treatment: No cases cited; the Court exercised its supervisory powers to issue specific preservation and reporting directions tailored to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: Given that the letters were transmitted through the Superintendent of the correctional home and that timing and movement inside/outside the correctional home are material to the question of influence or coaching, the Court directed preservation of CCTV footage (inside and outside) for a defined period and production of the original visitor register for that period. The Court also required ED and CBI to file investigative reports, including video recordings if necessary, by a specified date to assist judicial evaluation. The Court made clear originals only would be accepted for the visitor register and cautioned about sanctions for non-compliance. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the directed preservation of CCTV footage (21 March to 6 April 2023) and production of the original visitor register, together with directions for ED/CBI to file reports by the listed date, are binding interim orders necessary to secure evidence central to the inquiry. Ancillary remarks on consequences for failure to produce originals are operative judicial warnings. Conclusions: The Court ordered immediate preservation of specified CCTV footage and original visitor registers relating to the accused's movement in the correctional home for the stated period and directed ED/CBI to file investigation reports (including video material) by the stipulated date to enable judicial assessment of the allegations and any putative design to intimidate investigators. Cross-references and procedural implications Cross-reference: Issues 1-3 are interlinked - the stay on operative effect of the letters (Issue 2) and the requirement for leave before FIRs (Issue 1) operationalize the Court's concern about coordinated attempts (Issue 3) to obstruct investigation; preservation and reporting directions (Issue 4) provide the evidentiary foundation to test the veracity and motive behind those complaints. Practical conclusion by the Court: Interim supervisory controls were imposed to prevent immediate police action on the custodial complaints, to require preservation of relevant evidence, and to direct investigatory agencies to probe possible coordination between public statements and custodial complaints; further orders were reserved pending investigatory reports.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
