VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory investigating agency, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be directed to obtain financial assistance from private parties for meeting the expenses required for conducting the investigation. Financial crunch of any state treasury is no justification for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such investigation.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 154 to 161-Investigation into offence-Complainant residing at Shillong filing complaint at Shillong-Respondent resident of Mumbai-Police inaction to carry on investigation due to financial crunch -High Court directing complainant to supply fund to police to meet cost -Unsustainable-Financial crunch of State is no justification for allowing private party to supply funds to police for conducting investigation-No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur-Cr.P.C. does not recognise private investigating agency-Statutory investigating agency cannot be directed to obtain financial assistance from private parties for meeting expenses required for conducting investigation.
       Section 156(1) says that the police officer can investigate any cognizable offence covered by the said FIR, if the said offence could be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over the local area of that police station. If the offence was committed outside the limit of such police station, the officer-in-charge of the police station can transmit the FIR to the police station having such territorial jurisdiction. Various States have formulated rules for effecting transfer of such FIR in such contingencies. All the duties are conferred by the statute on the police and they shall be carried out as they are statutory duties. The sublime idea behind formulating such steps for conducting investigation is to enable the statutory authority to independently carry out the investigation without being influenced by any of the interested parties. Investigation must not only be fair but impartial and the conclusion reached by them should be unbiased. (Paras 10 & 12)
       The Code does not recognise private investigating agency. If any person is interested in hiring any such private agency, he may do so at his own risk and cost, but such investigation would not be regarded as investigation made under law. Any evidence collected in such private investigation and any conclusion reached by such investigators cannot be presented by Public Prosecutor in any trial. Of course it may be possible for the defence to present such evidence. The police investigation should necessarily be with the fund supplied by the State. It may be possible for a rich complainant to supply any amount of fund to the police for conducting investigation into his complaint. But a poor man cannot afford to supply any financial assistance to the police. It is an acknowledged reality that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So he would call the shots. Its corollary is that somebody who incurs the cost of anything would normally secure its control also. In our constitutional scheme, the police and other statutory investigating agency cannot be allowed to be hackneyed by those who can afford it. All complaints shall be investigated with equal alacrity and with equal fairness irrespective of the financial capacity of the person lodging the complaint. (Paras 15 & 16)
       Financial crunch of any state treasury is no justification for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such investigation. Augmentation of the fiscal resources of the State for meeting the expenses needed for such investigations is the lookout of the executive. Failure to do it is no premise for directing a complainant to supply funds to the investigating officer. Such funding by interested private parties would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Code. A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-The police inaction to carry on with the investigation in a particular criminal case was attributed to financial crunch of the State and the High Court directed the complainant to supply funds to the police to meet the cost. The party against whom the case was filed felt that such privately funded investigation tantamounts to hired investigation which would mar the sanctity of the purpose of statutory investigation and hence he approached this Court for special leave to appeal. Leave granted.

2. Facts which led to the issuance of the aforesaid direction, briefly, are the following : A Mumbai based company claimed ownership of certain land situated at a commercially strategic location in the city of Mumbai. Another company the headquarters of which is at Shillong in Meghalaya, entered into some transaction with the Mumbai Company in respect of the said land. Further details of the disputes are not very necessary for this appeal except stating from the stage of commencement of the criminal proceedings. An FIR was lodged by the Shillong company with the Shillong police alleging that the Mumbai Company has cheated Shillong Company to the tune of Rupees nine crores. Sometime after lodgment of the said FIR the Shillong Company observed that the police was not moving ahead with the investigation as fast or as distant as the company expected. Hence the Shillong company filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Guwahati for appropriate directions. A single Judge of the High Court passed a direction the extract of which reads thus :

"In the circumstances I direct that in case the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount which would be required to undertake the investigation and for the visit of the senior police officers to Bombay in connection with the investigation work the state government shall allow them to do so and direct the investigating team to proceed in right earnest and speedily.

It is further directed that the amount that would be required to undertake the investigation will be intimated to the petitioner within one week and the petitioner shall make the deposit of the amount within three days thereafter."

3. As the above direction was obviously unpalatable to the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, he and the Home Secretary of the State filed an appeal along with the State before a Division Bench of the High Court challenging the said direction issued by the Single Judge. According to the State, the investigation has to be conducted in Mumbai by the Maharashtra police and hence the direction issued by the Single Judge is unworkable. But the said contention was repelled by the Division Bench. Regarding the direction issued by the Single Judge to get funds from the aggrieved complainant, the Division Bench did not dilate much. Nevertheless learned judges did not interfere with the said direction and observed that "in any case the learned single judge has passed a just and proper order in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."

4. In this context we may point out that appellant was not brought into the array even at the above stage. He was kept in dark about all what happened at Shillong as the appellant was doing his business confirming to the radius of Mumbai. But when he was called by the police in connection with the FIR lodged at Shillong, he learned about the facts which preceded till then. Hence he moved that High Court of Bombay in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the FIR and the further proceedings taken thereon. But a Division Bench of Bombay High Court expressed helplessness in the matter and dismissed the Writ Petition on the sole ground that the High Court of Bombay has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to deal with an FIR registered at Shillong.

5. When the said Writ Petition was dismissed, the appellant rushed to this Court with two Special Leave Petitions, one in challenge of the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay Hig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1646

Cases Referred (6)