Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, JJ.
S.P. Velumani - Appellant
Versus
Arappor Iyakkam and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9161 of 2021)
Decided On : 20-05-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 207 – Supply of documents to accused – Mandate of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of rights of appellant-accused as well as to principles of natural justice – Prosecution by State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution – When State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for High Court to have permitted report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover – High Court directed to supply a copy of report submitted by Superintendent of Police along with other documents to appellant. (Paras 26, 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Allegation against the appellant is that while he was serving as a Minister, he is alleged to have misused his powers to influence the tender process and ensured that tenders were awarded to his close aides. State registered an FIR, being FIR No.16/2021 dated 09.08.2021, against 17 accused persons, including the appellant herein under Section 120B r/w Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 109 of IPC. Appellant herein filed an application being W.M.P. No. 24569 of 2021 in the writ petition pending before the High Court, seeking a copy of the preliminary Enquiry Report dated 18.12.2019 and associated documents submitted by Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption as well as the decision taken by Vigilance Commission. High Court vide impugned order dated 08.11.2021, while dismissing the appellant’s application. Only issue which requires this Court’s consideration is whether the appellant herein is entitled to preliminary report in the present facts and circumstances.
Findings of Court:
When State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
N.V. RAMANA, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 34845 of 2018.
3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this dispute are as follows : the appellant was a Cabinet Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu from 2014. On 11.09.2018, one Mr. R.S. Bharathi filed a complaint with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. He also filed a criminal petition before the Madras High Court, being Crl.O.P. No. 23428 of 2018. On the very next day, respondent No.1 filed a complaint before Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and SP, Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBI. As no action was forthcoming by the aforesaid Authorities, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition registered as WP No. 34845 of 2018 before the High Court seeking, inter alia, a mandamus directing the Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by him and to constitute an SIT for the purpose of investigation. It may be necessary to note that both, the writ petition and Crl.O.P., were tagged and heard together.
4. Broadly, the allegation against the appellant is that while he was serving as a Minister, he is alleged to have misused his powers to influence the tender process and ensured that tenders were awarded to his close aides.
5. When the aforesaid writ petition was listed for the first time before the High Court, the High Court issued notice and directed the respondents therein to file their counter affidavits. On 18.10.2019, when the aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing, the High Court passed following order:
14. The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption shall file the Status Report as to the progress being made in the preliminary enquiry, with supporting documents in sealed cover for perusal of this Court.”
6. Accordingly, on 01.11.2019, a status report was produced before the High Court. On perusal of the aforesaid report, the High Court granted time to complete the preliminary enquiry.
7. On 16.12.2019, the Investigating Officer appointed by the High Court completed the preliminary enquiry and submitted a final report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. In view of this, the High Court directed the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to produce the aforesaid enquiry report in a sealed cover before the next date of hearing.
8. It is important to note that in the meanwhile on 17.02.2020, the State Government filed an application being W.M.P. No. 4747 of 2020 in W.P. No. 34845 of 2018, before the High Court indicating as under: -
xxx
In the light of the above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take the above facts on record and dispose of the writ petition as having become infructuous and pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
9. Accordingly, on 19.02.2020, the High Court passed the following order in the captioned
Supply of documents to accused – Mandate of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of rights of appellant-accused as well as to principles of ....
The impact of change in government on legal proceedings and the need for decisions to be based on statutory provisions, reasonableness, and public interest.
Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before FIR registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act; a prima facie case allows for investigation without prior inquiry.
The court affirmed that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory for FIR registration in corruption cases; prompt action is required upon credible information regarding misconduct.
Forgery - Quash of FIR - Rights of petitioner - While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and, in any case, it should not exceed....
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
