Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & Kuldip Singh J
State of Bihar & Another -Appellants
versus
Sh. P.P. Sharma & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 &28 of 1990
Decided on 2-4-1991.
(ii) Constitution of India 1950 - Arts. 226/227 Writ against F.I.R. & Charge sheet High Court quashing them on the ground that prosecution against the respondents was initiated as a result of malice on the part of administrator informant or the information officer who were not parties to the petition - Whether proper? (No) (Paras 25, 55 & 58).
(iii) Criminal Procedure Code 1973 -so 197. - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - s. 15A - Whether Charge sheets became illegal for obtaining sanction after filing them but before cognizance is taken on them? (No) - High Court holding sanction was illegal - Whether correct? (No) (Paras 31, 59 to 61)
(iv) Constitution of India 1950 - Art. 226, 227 - F.I.R. & Charge sheet - Special Judge seized of matter - Arguments heared whether cognizance be taken or not -Judgment not permitted to be pronounced & High Court quashed F.I.R. & Charge sheet under writ jurisdiction. Whether proper? (No) (Paras 35, 64)
(v) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409,420,467,468 and 471 r/w s. 120B r/w s. 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. Offences under. High Court quashing F.I.R. & Charge sheets on the ground that prima facie no offence was made out under those provisions Whether correct? (No)(Paras 53 & 62)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Once a police report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been forwarded to the Magistrate after investigation, and the material collected is under judicial scrutiny, the High Court should refrain from entertaining proceedings to quash the case under its inherent or writ jurisdiction (!) .
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is limited when a case is at the stage of investigation and cognizance has not yet been taken by the court, especially when the police investigation is complete and the material is under judicial review (!) (!) .
The investigation of a crime is a specialized process involving multiple steps, including collection of evidence, examination of witnesses, and analysis of material objects, with the primary goal of uncovering the truth and connecting the offender to the crime (!) (!) .
The investigation is conducted by police officers who have statutory powers to gather evidence without undue interference, and their actions are protected unless mala fide or bias can be established (!) (!) .
The magistrate's role begins when a report is filed and the court considers whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed with the case; until then, the investigation remains within the domain of the police, and judicial interference should be minimal (!) (!) .
The exercise of power by the police must be in good faith and free from malice or improper motives. Allegations of mala fide or bias must be supported by specific facts and evidence, not vague assertions (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that the mere lodging of an FIR or the initiation of investigation does not imply mala fide; the investigation should be impartial, and any suspicion of bias must be proven with concrete facts (!) (!) .
The prior sanction of the appropriate authority is a legal requirement for prosecuting certain public officials, and the absence of such sanction can render proceedings illegal; however, once sanction is obtained and the investigation is complete, proceedings are generally valid (!) (!) .
The courts should avoid interfering with ongoing investigations or proceedings unless there is clear abuse of process, mala fide conduct, or violation of constitutional rights such as personal liberty, which must be established with evidence (!) (!) .
The power to quash criminal proceedings at an early stage is limited, and courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the magistrate or judge who is seized of the case, especially when the police report indicates a prima facie case (!) (!) .
The courts recognize that the appreciation of evidence and determination of prima facie case are functions of the trial court, and interference at the investigation stage or before cognizance is improper unless gross irregularities or illegalities are evident (!) (!) .
The principle that criminal proceedings should not be quashed lightly is reinforced, and courts should respect the investigative process and the subsequent steps before arriving at a conclusion about the merits of the case (!) .
The exercise of jurisdiction under constitutional or inherent powers to quash proceedings should be exercised with caution, primarily when the case is at a preliminary stage and the police report indicates sufficient grounds for prosecution (!) .
The importance of following proper procedures, including obtaining necessary sanctions and conducting impartial investigations, is underscored to prevent abuse of process and protect individual rights (!) .
The courts highlight that allegations of mala fide or bias require specific and substantial proof, and mere suspicion or vague claims are insufficient to justify quashing proceedings or FIRs (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
JUDGMENT
K. Ramaswamy, J. Investigation of a crime is not of a routine duty, in particular in intractable terrains of high places committed with dexterity and sophistication. The unfounded threat of mala
fides or bias often deter a sincere and dedicated investigator to make in depth investigation causing catastrophic incursion on the effectively to connect the offender with crime which would serve the detractor's purpose. The attempt to avail writ remedy on this score is on the ascending scale. The incalculable damage of interference would be on the efficacy of rule of law and maintaining order in the society. This anxiety made me to probe deep into the scope of interference under Art. 225 and express my views, though I am in full agreement with my learned brother.
2. Since my learned brother stated the facts in extenso, they bear no repetition. To focus on the questions stemmed from the findings of the High Court, I state only few facts thus:
The Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union (for short 'the BISCOMAUN') is the sole purchaser and distributor of fertilizers to the farmers in the State through its depots situated at different parts of the State. When the BISCOMAUN was at the brink of liquidation due to mismanagement, the State Government superseded its Board of Directors on July 30, 1988 and appointed R.K. Singh, I.A.S. as its Administrator and Managing Director During the course of the discharge of his duties, he noted financial irregularities committed by P.P. Sharma, the then Managing Director (the first respondent), Ganesh Dutt Misra, the then Advisor (the second respondent) and Tapeshwar Singh, the then Chairman of BISCOMAUN and laid the information before the Station House Officer, Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna on September 1, 1968. Shorn of the details the substratum of the accusations made against them is that they conspireo with the Rajasthan Multi Fertilizers Private Limited (for short the Company') through its partners named therein to cause wrongful gain to the Company and wrongful loss to the BISCOMAUN and the farmers to purchase substandard fertilizers by name 'Suraj' brand. In furtherance there of the Chairman received applications directly from the company and without routing through the official channel and without inviting tenders from open market, the contract was finalised. The prevailing retail price of Suraj brand of the Company itself was Rs. 2,000/- per M.T., but contracted to purchase at Rs. 2,509.60 per M.T. In terms of the 'contract the Company had to supply granulated mixed fertilizers with full bags, which would be subjected to chemical analysis in the laboratory either of the BlSCOMAUN or the State or Central Government. If the fertilizers were found to be of substandard, the same were to be taken return of at the Company's expenses. On test if fertilizers were found to be standard one, payment was to be made at a specified rate within 30 days. Sharma placed orders with the Company to supply 2500 M.Ts. of fertilizers. Fertilizers Inspectors were to have the fertilizers tested in terms of the Fertilizers Control Order. Instead, the agent of the Company had taken the fertilizers for chemical examination in Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar. The report said to have been given by Dr. S.N. Jha, Associate Professor of Soil Science of the University, was fabricated by one S.N. Sahoo, an Assistant in the department who is one of the accused; payments were made in undue haste and further order to supply of 450 M.Ts. was made by G.D. Misra. Only 459 M.Ts. in total was sold out when the reports were being received from depots that the fertilizers supplied were substandard and spurious and the bags do not contain the full weight, instead of returning the stock a resolution was obtained from the Managing Committee to convert unsold old stock as HARBAHAR. When a specific request for conversion of the stock supplied by the Company for conversion as HARBAHAR was turned out by the Managing Com
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
