Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA, D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
State of Bihar and another, Appellants
Versus
J. A. C. Saldanna and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 301 and 300 of 1979
Decided on 13-11-1979.
AND
R. P. Singh, Appellant
Versus
J. A. C. Saldanna and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sr. Advocate (M/s. Ram Anugrah Prasad, U. P. Singh, Advocates with him), for Appellants in Crl. A. No. 301/79; Mr. Basudeo Prasad Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate with him), for Appellants in Crl. A. No. 300/79; M/s. A. K. Sen and Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocates (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. B. Sanyal, N. C. Gangoli, S. Swarup, J. S. Sinha and K. J. John, Advocates with them), for Respondent No. 1 in both the Appeals; Mr. Prabha Shankar Mishra, Sr. Advocate (Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate with him), for Respondents Nos. 2-3 in both the Appeals; Mr. M. P. Jha, Advocate, for Respondent No. 4 in both the Appeals; Mr. R. K. Jain, Advocate, for Respondent No. 7 in Crl. A. 301/79 and Respondent No. 6 in Crl. A. No. 300/79.
* W.J.C. No. 12 of 1979, D/- 14-5-1979 (Pat).
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 173(2),2(h),2(r),156(1) & (2),36 and 551 - Indian Police Act, 1861 – Section 3 and 173 (8) - Transportation -Factual matrix will highlight the situation - Though the point canvassed centres round limit of jurisdiction to interfere with investigation of an offence registered at a police station, to pin-point contention, relevant facts may be stated with circumspection, as case is sub judice because any overt or covert expression of opinion on facts in controversy awaiting adjudication may be censured as judicial impropriety - TISCO, has a railway siding - Ferro Manganese Plant has been set up by TISCO for which nearest railway head - TISCO has its iron ore and manganese mines - Ore is being transported from delivery point being railway yard - Allegation is that some of empty wagons after ore was delivered at Railway Station Yard on the return journey to were loaded with pearl coke without being booked according to railway rules and without issuance of railway receipts with connivance of the local railway officials and railway was defrauded of its legitimate revenue - Whether, when investigation was in progress High Court was justified in interfering with investigation and prohibiting or precluding further investigation in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution – Held, there are some serious allegations made against respondent by original petitioner and some of them were repeated with vehemence even at hearing before this Court - Court do not propose to examine them on merits save and except saying that once investigation was taken over by respondent and conclusion reached by respondent 6 and his subordinate investigating officer to file charge-sheet was not acted upon, stage at which the case was brought to High Court did not call for investigation into the male fides of respondent, appellant in cognate appeal - After making him a respondent in High Court an opportunity was taken to cast aspersions against his character - His whole attitude in registering an offence and directing investigation into offence has been questioned though an independent officer not even remotely connected with police department, the Commissioner of Division found substance in the first information report in the investigation done by respondent 6 and his conclusion, which again was affirmed by D. I. G., Railway, not shown to be biased - High Court interfered at the stage where investigation was to be taken up by an independent agency and, therefore, the so-called bias of respondent becomes wholly irrelevant - Court therefore, consider the aspersions cast on character of respondent 6 and the allegations of mala fides made against him virtually accepted by High Court in entirety as utterly irrelevant and same may be treated as expunged for the purposes of this appeal - Court accordingly allow Criminal Appeal, quash and set aside the order of High Court and restore the order passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate- In view of this order it is not necessary to pass any final order in cognate appeal preferred by respondent - Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Court held that general superintendence over the police includes the power to direct further investigation when warranted, and is not limited by Section 173(8) or other provisions, provided circumstances justify it (!) (!) (!) . - It was found that the State Government, via the Chief Secretary and Chief Minister, could direct the Inspector-General, Vigilance, to take over or direct further investigation, and such action is not outside the scope of Section 3 of the Indian Police Act, given the general power of superintendence over the entire state police (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court’s interference under Article 226 to preclude further investigation in the midst of ongoing investigation and before a final order by the magistrate was considered improper and set aside; the judiciary’s role begins when cognizance is taken or when directed by statute, and not to prematurely direct conclusions during ongoing investigations (context of Khwaja Nazir Ahmad cited) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
D. A. DESAI, J.:—Reverence and anxiety to the same degree, if not more, to shoot at sight even a remote intrusion into the field preserved for judiciary must inform the judicial approach whenever assistance of the judicial machinery is sought for an unwarranted encroachment into the field of activity reserved for the other branch of Government, more so, when extraordinary power conferred on the High Court to issue prerogative writ in aid of justice is invoked to thwart a possible detection of a suspected offence. How dangerous it is to rush in where one should be wary to tread is amply demonstrated by the facts revealed in these two appeals.
2. Factual matrix will highlight the situation. Though the point canvassed centres round the limit of jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation of an offence registered at a police station, to pin-point the contention, relevant facts may be stated with circumspection, as the case is sub judice because any overt or covert expression of opinion on the facts in controversy awaiting adjudication may be censured as judicial impropriety.
3. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., (TISCO for short), has a railway siding at Adityapur in Tatanagar. A Ferro Manganese Plant has been set up by TISCO at Joda, for which the nearest railway head is Banaspani in Orissa. TISCO has its iron ore and manganese mines at Naomundi. Ore is being transported from Banaspani and Naomundi to Tatanagar, delivery point being railway yard at Adityapur. The allegation is that some of the empty wagons after ore was delivered at Adityapur Railway Station Yard on the return journey to Banaspani/Naomundi were loaded with pearl coke without being booked according to railway rules and without the issuance of railway receipts with the connivance of the local railway officials and the railway was defrauded of its legitimate revenue. It was also alleged that some tanks containing furnace oil were diverted without regular booking which also resulted in deprivation of the legitimate revenue to the Railway. Adityapur railway yard was not, according to the railway administration, a booking station and hence no booking staff was posted there and, therefore, wagons could not have been booked from Adityapur railway yard and there was considerable variation in the number of wagons booked from Tatanagar and received at Banaspani as set out in first information report. On these allegations a first information report was lodged on March 11, 1977, consequent upon which an offence was registered at Tatanagar G.R.P.S. under Ss. 420/120-B, 418 and 368, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 105/106 of the Indian Railways Act against 9 persons. One S. R. I. Rizvi, Inspector Railway Police, S. E. Railway, Tatanagar, commenced investigation into the offence under the general supervision of R. P. Singh, Superintendent, Railway Police, respondent 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1979 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 300/79). Ordinarily, the investigation would proceed in a traditionally routine manner by the police machinery but it has taken none-too-commendable zig-zag course because of the personalities involved in the case and which should have been the most irrelevant factor to influence the decisions of various persons involved in these appeals. It appears that the D.I.G., Railway Police who was the immediate superior of respondent 6, wrote a letter to the then D.I.G., C.I.D., Bihar, on May 11, 1977, requesting him to entrust the investigation of the aforementioned offences to Central Bureau of Investigation but the Inspector-General of Police, Bihar, as per his letter dated June 24, 1977, declined the request. In the mean-time one Shri Rusi Modi, resident representative of TISCO at Patna appears to have written a personal letter to Shri Saran Singh, the then Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar, complaining about the harassment suffered by the officers of TISCO pursuant to the investigation carried on by railway police under the supervision of respo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
