2006 Supreme(SC) 1066

2006(8) Supreme 564
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Shashikant - Appellant
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2006
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6426 of 2005)
Decided on 7-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sudhir Voditel (for A.K. Sanghi), Advocate.
For the Respondents : Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Ms. Abha R. Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Mrs. Vimla Sinha and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
CBI Manual provides for a preliminary inquiry and a preliminary inquiry may be converted into a regular case as soon as sufficient material becomes available to show that prima facie there has been commission of a cognizable offence.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 154 and 157 - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 2 r/w CBI Manual - Constitution of a special police force for investigation of certain offences in Union Territories - Manual provided for detailed procedure as regards mode and manner in which complaints against public servants were to be dealt with - Manual provided for a preliminary inquiry which could be converted into a regular case as soon sufficient material became available to show that prima facie there was commission of a cognizable offence - Appellant an employee made an anonymous complaint to CBI alleging corrupt practices and financial irregularities on part of some officers of his department - CBI conducted preliminary inquiry but Investigating Officer was of opinion that registration of FIR was not necessary and recommended for departmental proceedings - Recommendation found favour with department and opinion of Central Vigilance Commission was taken - Departmental proceedings were taken up and minor penalties were imposed - Writ petition by appellant for directions including registration of FIR - High Court dismissed writ - Appeal - Nature of relief prayed for in writ petition was beyond domain of writ Court save and except, an exceptional case was made out - Appellant may have to pursue his own remedy keeping in view that 1st respondent had furnished details of his findings in preliminary inquiry - No reason to interfere.

       Held : Indisputably, the first respondent has been constituted in terms thereof. Sub section (2) of Section 2 provides that subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, members of the said police establishment shall have throughout any Union territory in relation to the investigation of such offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers of that Union territory have in connection with the investigation of offences committed therein. The said Act indisputably applies in regard to charges of corruption made against the employees of Union of India. It is also not disputed that the C.B.I. Manual was made by the Central Government providing for detailed procedure as regards the mode and manner in which complaints against public servants are to be dealt with.(Para 9)

       CBI Manual provides for a preliminary inquiry. By reason thereof a distinction has been made between a preliminary inquiry and a regular case. A preliminary inquiry in terms of Para 9.1 of the CBI Manual may be converted into a regular case as soon as sufficient material becomes available to show that prima facie there has been commission of a cognizable offence.(Para 11)

       Appellant does not deny or dispute that the first respondent initiated a preliminary inquiry upon receipt of the complaint. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to lodge a First Information Report and carry out a full-fledged investigation about the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the said anonymous complaint. (Para 16)

       Although ordinarily in terms of Section 154 of the Code, when a report is received relating to the cognizable offence, a First Information Report should be lodged, to carry out a preliminary inquiry even under the Code is not unknown. (Para 17)

       When an anonymous complaint is received, no investigating officer would initiate investigative process immediately thereupon. It may for good reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein.(Para 18)

       Thus, registration of a case is a sine qua non for starting investigation [See Mohindro v. State of Punjab and Others – (2001) 9 SCC 581].(Para 23)

       Only an anonymous complaint was made in June 2004. Evidently it was within the province of the first respondent to commence a preliminary inquiry. The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual and in particular when it was required to inquire into the allegation of the corruption on the part of some public servants, recourse to the provisions of the Manual cannot be said to be unfair. It did not find any reason to convert the preliminary inquiry into a regular case. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendation made by the first respondent, which had received the imprimatur by the Central Vigilance Commission, departmental proceedings were initiated. The Central Vigilance Commission advised the Railway Board to initiate minor penalty proceedings against the delinquent officers by a letter dated 04.08.2005. (Para 24)

       It is not in dispute that Appellant was directed to be transferred on administrative grounds by an order dated 20.05.2005. The complaint was although made by Appellant; but it being anonymous his address was not known. It may be true, initially he having been posted in the store in which the delinquent officers were also working, his statement had been recorded; but when a preliminary inquiry was conducted on the basis of an anonymous complaint without registering a First Information Report, neither it was necessary to comply with the provision of the proviso (b) appended to sub-section (1) of Section 157 of the Code, nor having regard to the fact that the identity of Appellant was being unknown, the question of complying with the said provisions, even if it be held that the same was applicable, did not arise.(Para 25)

       The First Respondent is a statutory authority. It has a statutory duty to carry out investigation in accordance with law. Ordinarily, it is not within the province of the court to direct the investigative agency to carry out investigation in a particular manner. A writ court ordinarily again would not interfere with the functioning of an investigative agency. Only in exceptional cases, it may do so. No such case has been made out by the appellant herein. The nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition also is beyond the domain of a writ court save and except, as indicated hereinbefore, an exceptional case is made out.(Para 29)

       So far as the decision of the first respondent herein, not to register a regular case so as to take up an investigation into the allegation against the concerned officers, is concerned, Appellant may have to pursue his own remedy keeping in view the fact that the first respondent before this Court has furnished the details of its findings in the preliminary inquiry as also the result of the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent officers.(Para 31)