Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1692
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Extra Judicial Execution Victim & Anr. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India And Ors. Respondent
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) Nos. 129 of 2012
Decided On : 30-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shreeji Bhavsar, Adv. Ms. Olivia Bang, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney Gen. Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Sunil J. Mathews, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Ms. Kanika S., Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR
The court emphasized the need for adherence to established procedures and the involvement of specific officers in the consultation process, ultimately directing the expedited processing of cases within a specified timeframe.
Headnote:
CBI - Procedural Guidelines - CrPC - [Chapter 19 of the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual – 2005] - The court discussed the CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the CrPC, particularly focusing on the guidelines for the CBI's functioning in relation to investigative functions, consultation process, and the filing of charge sheets or final reports under Section 173 of the CrPC. The court emphasized the need for adherence to established procedures and the involvement of specific officers in the consultation process, ultimately directing the expedited processing of cases within a specified timeframe.
Fact of the Case:
The Director, CBI and other counsels presented before the court. The court reviewed the CBI Manual and discussed the consultation process and filing of charge sheets or final reports under Section 173 of the CrPC. The number of incidents and charge sheets filed were also addressed.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the involvement of specific officers in the consultation process, expedited processing of cases within a specified timeframe, and left the decision of arrests and custodial interrogation to the discretion of the Director, CBI and the SIT.
Issues: Interpretation of the CBI Manual and statutory provisions of the CrPC, consultation process, filing of charge sheets or final reports, and the necessity of arrests and custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: Adherence to established procedures, involvement of specific officers in the consultation process, expedited processing of cases, and discretion of the Director, CBI and the SIT in deciding arrests and custodial interrogation.
Final Decision: The matter was adjourned to a later date, and the decision of arrests and custodial interrogation was left to the discretion of the Director, CBI and the SIT.
ORDER :
1. The Director, CBI is present in the Court today pursuant to order dated 27.07.2018.
2. We have heard the learned Attorney General and Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned ASG. We have also heard the learned Amicus and learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned ASG has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226]. He has referred to the directions given by this Court in para 58 therein particularly sub para 12:
“The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the CrPC provides essential guidelines for the CBI's functioning. It is imperative that the CBI adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the officials concerned.”
4. In view of the submission made by the learned Attorney General, the learned Amicus has shown to us the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual – 2005.
5. We have gone through Chapter 19 thereof, which deals with Final Reports, SPs Reports and Comments of Superior Officers.
6. On going through this Chapter, we find that the Investigating Officer is required to give a Final Report in terms of Part I of the proforma attached to the Manual. Thereafter, the comments of the Law Officer is required to be given in terms of Part II of the proforma attached to the Manual. This is in terms of paras 19.3 and 19.4 of the Manual.
7. The Law Officer gives his comments on the matter which is required to be processed by the Supervisory Officer (Superintendent of Police) in terms of para 19.6 of the Manual.
8. In this context, it was submitted by Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, In charge of SIT and it was also submitted before us on an earlier occasion that the entire process is to be looked into at 6 or 7 levels of officers, if not more. However, on a reading of Chapter 19 of the Manual, it appears that the only persons who are involved in the consultation process are the Investigating Officer, the Law Officer and the Supervisory Officer (Superintendent of Police).
9. In this particular case, the person In charge of the SIT is of the rank of Deputy Director General now promoted as Joint Director. He is therefore superior to the officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, we are of the view that the comments of the Supervisory Officer can always be obtained from the officer in charge of the SIT i.e. the DIG / Joint Director.
10. However, the Director, CBI has requested that the Superintendent of Police may continue to be involved for the purposes of giving his comments. We accede to the request made by the Director, CBI and permit the Superintendent of Police to be involved as the Supervisory Officer along with the DIG / Joint Director.
11. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that there are 6 or 7 levels of officers that are required to be consulted before a charge sheet or final report is finalized. The process can be compressed and the entire exercise can be undertaken within a period of three weeks.
12. Now it appears that since only two layers of officers are involved, we are of the view that not more than two weeks are required for the purpose of processing the case from the stage of FR to the filing of charge sheet or final report under Section 173 of the CrPC. We direct accordingly.
13. On our asking Mr. Aggarwal, DIG / Joint Director, who is the head of the SIT, has submitted that he would require one more officer for each Investigating Officer. It transpires that there are 12 Investigating Officers and each one of them already has two officers attached to them. Notwithstanding this, the Director has acceded to the request made by Mr. Aggarwal and has assured that one more officer will be attached to each Investigating Officer, as desired by Mr. Aggarwal.
14. In our opinion, this should certainly expedite the investig
