advocatemmmohan
CBI
Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946 – the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – No approval from the central government is necessary when the case was monitored by the constitutional court itself = Manohar Lal Sharma …….Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. ……Respondents = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41094
Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946 – the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – No approval from the central government is necessary when the case was monitored by the constitutional court itself = whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946 (“DSPE … Continue reading
Contempt of court – 2 G spectrum scam – Respondents attempted to interfere with an investigation which is being monitored by Apex court – Maintainability – Apex court held that the contempt petition is maintainable = Rajeshwar Singh …Petitioner Versus Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors. …Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41054
Contempt of court – 2 G spectrum scam – Respondents attempted to interfere with an investigation which is being monitored by Apex court – Maintainability – Apex court held that the contempt petition is maintainable = Whether the contempt petition is maintainable = This contempt petition has been preferred under Article 129, … Continue reading
When C.B.I. may be directed to enquiry – Kidnap of a minor girl by Forest Officials – only statements of Forest department were recorded but not the eye witnesses and general public who protested the Forest Officials while taking minor girl and another woman who escaped from Forest Geep – Forest officials admitted the galata took place but denied kidnap/forceful taken over the Rajanandini – 14 years minor girl – Habeaus Corpus – modified and Apex court directed for C.B.I enquiry = Alsia Pardhi …. Appellant(s) Versus State of M.P. & Ors. …. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41047
When C.B.I. may be directed to enquiry – Kidnap of a minor girl by Forest Officials – only statements of Forest department were recorded but not the eye witnesses and general public who protested the Forest Officials while taking minor girl and another woman who escaped from Forest Geep – Forest officials admitted the … Continue reading
Under sec. 311. 233 of Cr. p.c. r/w evidence Act at fag end of trial = RAJESH TALWAR & ANR Vs. CBI & ANR published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40869
Under sec. 311. 233 of Cr. p.c. r/w evidence Act – No application for summoning witnesses and for summoning documents etc., at the fag end of the trial, filed for dilatory tactics is to be allowed = Apex court held that the application is vexatious and intended to … Continue reading
Block listing permanently – not correct= M/s Kulja Industries Limited …Appellant Versus Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL & Ors. …Respondents= published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40855
Block listing permanently – not correct – remanded for fresh determination as per the department guidelines = Paras 31 and 32 of the bid document also, according to the learned counsel, provides for blacklisting only for a “suitable period”. This implies that blacklisting had to be for a … Continue reading
monitor the investigation= whether this Court should continue to monitor the investigation, as directed earlier, even after filing of the charge- sheet. = monitoring of a case is continued till the investigation continues but when the investigating agency, which is appointed by the court, completes the investigation, files a charge-sheet and takes steps in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law before a competent court of law, it would not be proper for this Court to keep on monitoring the trial which is continuing before a competent court. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that since the investigation has already been completed, charge- sheet has been filed, trial has already commenced, it is not necessary for this Court to continue with the monitoring of the case in question. In these circumstances, we have to answer the question in the negative. Accordingly, we direct that it is not necessary to monitor the matter in question any further since the matter is in the domain of the competent court. All the applications are accordingly disposed of.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40830 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.21811 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.17950 OF 2011 AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.15638 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.21811 OF 2010 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 3212 OF … Continue reading
2G Spectrum case.=whether two orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, while monitoring the investigation of 2G related cases, are liable to be recalled, de hors the rights guaranteed to the Petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India, if aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum case.= No Court, other than the Court seized with the trial, has the power to monitor the proceedings pending before it. Order dated 11.4.2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large backlog of cases in the Courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse of Court’s system by indulging in unnecessary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying the entire trial process. Criminal justice system’s procedure guarantees and elaborateness sometimes give, create openings for abusive, dilatory tactics and confer unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause delay to their advantage. Longer the trial, witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade and evidence will be stale. Taking into consideration all those aspects, this Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger public interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress of the trial. Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable to get on with their lives and business. 29. We fail to see how the principle laid down by this Court in A.R. Antulay’s case (supra) would apply to the facts of these cases. We have found no error in the orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 or on 09.04.2012. Therefore, the question of rectifying any error does not arise. On the other hand, as we have already indicated, the purpose and object of passing those orders was for a larger public interest and for speedy trial, that too on day-to-day basis which has been reflected not only in the various provisions of the PC Act, 1988 but also falls within the realm of judicial accountability. 30. We also find no reason to lay down any guidelines as prayed for by the petitioners in a Court monitored investigation. In a Court monitored investigation, as already pointed out the Court is not expected to interfere with the trial proceedings. The conduct of the trial is the business of the trial judge and not the court monitoring the investigation. A superior court exercising the appellate power or constitutional power, if gives a direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in a specific time by giving direction is not interfering with the trial proceedings but only facilitating the speedy trial, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That being the factual situation in these cases, the principle laid down by this Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh “Lalan” VI and another v. Union of India and others (2006) 1 SCC 356, Brij Narain Singh v. Adya Prasad (2008) 11 SCC 558 and Ankul Chandra Pradhan (supra), are not applicable. 31. We, therefore, find no good reason either to frame guidelines to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to monitoring of criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 or 09.04.2012. Writ Petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed, so also IA Nos.59, 61, 63 and 68 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40716 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.548 OF 2012 Shahid Balwa …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents With WRIT PETITION (C) NO.550, 551, 552 OF 2012, 17 of 2013, and I.A. Nos.59, 61, 63 and 68 IN CIVIL APPEAL … Continue reading
Entrusting the investigation to the CBI = the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 7623 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate into the broadcasting of certain news items by certain television channels on 02.03.2012 regarding scuffle between advocates, police and media persons in the premises of the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore.= a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal and Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 571 has laid down certain principles. Though the CBI has issued various principles/suggestions for endorsing the matter to CBI in para 68, it is worthwhile to refer the conclusion in paras 69 & 70. “69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. 70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” Keeping the above principles in mind, considering the series of unfortunate incidents which occurred within the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore on 02.03.2012 involving members of the bar, police personnel, journalists and media persons and in spite of the specific direction by the High Court as early as on 16.05.2012, subsequent order of this Court dated 19.10.2012, and also of the fact that the composition of SIT itself has not been finalized, we feel that the present case falls within the principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench and we are satisfied that CBI inquiry is necessitated in the matter in issue. 12) In the light of what is stated above, while setting aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.05.2012 and in modification of earlier order of this Court dated 19.10.2012, we entrust the entire investigation of the incident to the CBI. Accordingly, we direct the CBI to carry out the investigation and submit a report before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction at Bangalore within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. We further direct the State/SIT to immediately hand over all the records pertaining to the said investigation to the CBI. 13) The appeal is allowed on the above terms. In view of the above direction, no separate order is required in I.A. No. 8 of 2013, accordingly, the same is also disposed of.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40700 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7159 OF 2013 2 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22604 of 2012) WITH 3 I.A. NO. 8 IN … Continue reading
Inquiry by CBI – rejected due to delay – with liberty to file fresh application on fresh grounds if any = the High Court has rejected the prayer of the appellant to transfer the investigation of his case/complaint to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the `CBI’). – His request to the Judicial Magistrate in regard to medical examination of the injuries which had been caused to him was rejected. = In sum and substance, firstly, the facts and circumstances of the instant case do not present special features warranting transfer of investigation to CBI, and that too, at such a belated stage where the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted before the competent criminal court. The allegations are only against the then RDO who might have been transferred to various districts during these past 15 years. Similarly various other police officials might have investigated the case and it is difficult to assume that every police official was under his influence and all of them acted with malafide intention. In view of the earlier order of this Court dated 2.9.2008, no subsequent development has been brought to the notice of the court which could warrant interference by superior courts and transfer the investigation to CBI. 15. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40664 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1167 of 2013 Prof. K.V. Rajendran …Appellant Versus Superintendent of Police, CBCID South …Respondents Zone, Chennai & Ors. J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This … Continue reading
Non- official as co – accused can be prosecuted along with other official accused by Special court = Admittedly, 2G Scam case is triable by the Special Judge against the persons accused of offences punishable under the PC Act in view of subSection (1) of Section 4. The Special Judge alone can take the cognizance of the offence specified in sub Section (1) of Section 3 and conspiracy in relation to them. While trying any case, the Special Judge may also try an offence other than the offence specified in subSection (1) of Section 3, in view of subSection (3) of Section 4. A magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence as specified in Section 3(1) of the PC Act. In this background, as the petitioners have been shown as coaccused in second supplementary chargesheet filed in 2G Scam case, it is open to the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offence under Section 120B and Section 420 IPC.- the Special Judge while trying the co accused of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act as also an offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC has the jurisdiction to try the appellant also for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC applying the principles incorporated in Section 223 of the Code.; In the present case there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioners will not get fair trial and may face miscarriage of justice. In absence of any such threat & miscarriage of justice, no interference is called for against the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. On 11th April, 2001, when the 2G Scam Case was taken up by this Court, this Court, inter alia, observed as follows: “Acting on such basis, this Court has given directions for establishing a separate Special Court to try this case and pursuant to such direction, a Special Court has been constituted after following the due procedure. We also make it clear that any objection about appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or his assistant advocates or any prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the Trial can be made only before this Court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a dayto day basis. All these directions are given by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case.” From the aforesaid order it is clear that this Court passed the order under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case. – In Rupa Asbhok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another, (2002) 4 SCC 388, this Court held that a final judgment or order passed by this Court cannot be assailed in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution by an aggrieved person, whether he was a party to the case or not. For the said reason also, it is not open to the petitioner to indirectly assail the order passed by this Court in 2G Scam case. 30. We find no merit in these writ petitions, they are accordingly dismissed. The Special Court is expected to proceed with the trial on daytoday basis to ensure early disposal of the trial. There shall be no order as to costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40469 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No. 57 OF 2012 ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. … RESPONDENTS With WRIT PETITION (C) No. 59 OF 2012 LOOP TELECOM LTD. … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. … RESPONDENTS With WRIT PETITION (C) No. 96 OF 2012 VIKASH SARAF … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Central 1Page 2 Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi taking cognizance against the petitioners, they … Continue reading
