SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Raj) 372

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
V.S. Dave, J.
Aran Shourie - Appellant
Versus
State through C.B.I. - Respondents
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 941 of 1987
Decided On : December 21, 1988

Advocates Appeared:
Arun Jaitley & Vimal Choudhary, for Petitioners; Mahesh Sharma, for Respondent; D.C. Swamy, Advocate General; S.F. Tyagi, for C.B.I

Headnote:(a) Cr.P.C., 1973—Ss. 2(d) and 190(a)— What is a complaint?-CompIaiat must ipso facto contain allegations constituting an offence and further that compl-aint should be in a position to place such evidence before the court. (Para 15)(b) Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 190, 156(3) & 202 — FERA, Ss. 33 & 45 — Customs Act, Ss. 100 to 108 — Commission of offence alleged under provisions of some Special Acts — Those Special Acts authorising specific authorities only to collect information — CJM forwarding complaint for investigation by CBI — Legality of such order of CJM — Jurisdiction transgressed by directing CBI to investigate into offences which do not fall within his own purview — Order is not a Judicial order. (Paras 19 & 20)(c) Cr.P.C., 1973-Ss. 190, 200 & 202—Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952— S 6--Complaint filed oh the basis of report of a commission—How it can be conceived of that a common man unconnected with the inquiry can use that report for the purpose of adjudication process or for prosecuting some one— Complaint has no direct or indirect evidence to substantiate in his possession — It is not permissible to file a complaint on the basis of this report. (Para 18)(d) Cr.P.C., 1973—Ss. 190, 200 & 202—Verbose complaint containing vague and indefinite allegations not constituting any offence—Complainant is wholly and totally ignorant about facts and about which he wants to make only a rowing and fishing inquiry—Held no complaint can be permitted to be proceeded. (Para 22)(e) Criminal Trial—Judicial Manerism—Order lacking in Judicial restraint and appearing to have been written more for publicity than for legal ends— Strictures passed. (Para 20)(f) Cr.P.C., 1973—Ss 156 (3) and 482— Magistrate sending complaint to police for investigation—When can High Court quash such order?—Can be quashed in rcrest of rare case—Such circumstances mentioned. (Para 11)(g) Word & Phrases—COURT—Meaning of- Commission of inquiry is not a court—Is a fact finding body not required to. adjudicate (Para 17) Petition allowed.

       

V.S. DAVE, J.—This is an application under S. 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the order passed by Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Officers), Jaipur dated December 14, 1987, by which he directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into the allegations levelled in a complaint filed by one Shri Manibhadra Bagra, former General Secretary, Rajasthan N.S.U.I, Jaipur the non-petitioner No. 2

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that one Shri Manibhadra Bagra filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan Jaipur, alleging that the accused persons named therein committed offences under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 409 and read with S. 120B IPC and also under Official Secrets Act (O.S. Act), Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), Import and Export Act (( & E). Act) and Customs Act. The complainant arrayed besides the two petitioners as accused, six others who have been joined as respondents in this application, and they are Shri V.P. Singh, former Defence Minister. Shri Bherulal, former Director of Enforcement, Government of India, Shri Nasli Wadia, Chairman, Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company, Shri Vinod Pandey, former Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Shri Ram Nath Goyanka of Express Group and Mr. Micheal Harshman, President, Fairfax, U.S.A. The complainants allegations are mainly based on the report of Justices Thakkar-Natrajan Commission of Inquiry which was submitted to the Government of India on December 10, 1987. The complainant has alleged that after going through this report and recommendations made therein coupled with the day to day activities of Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh, he was convinced that the accused persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy and are engaged in the task of defaming the Central Government. It is alleged that Shri V.P Singh, former Finance and Defence Minister in the Government of India was bound by the oath of allegiance and secrecy which he had taken while entering the office. Sarva Shri Vinod Pandey and Bhurelal both were civil servants being I AS. Officer were also obliged to maintain secrecy and allegiance to the country as they were holding important posts in the Government of India. It was further alleged that Sarva Shri Nasli Wadia, Bhurelal and Vinod Pandey, in conspiracy with the two petitioners Arun Shourie and S. Gurumurthy agreed to promote the claim of Shri V.P. Singh for Prime Ministership of this country and in pursuance of that conspiracy, they wanted to defame the present Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajeev Gandhi. It was further alleged that with this view in mind, services of Mr. Micheal Harshman, President of Fairfax a detective agency in United States of America were solicited to investigate into certain matters. It was therefore, alleged that the engagement of Mr. Harshman was not only in violation of law but it threatened the security of the country as important information had been passed over to him. It was alleged that Mr. Nasli Wadia played an important role in securing the services of Harshman and there is possibility that somebody else might have said for the engagement of this agency as no money had been paid by the Government of India. It was also alleged that the engagement of the company and payment to it were kept secret and no record was maintained at the behest of Shri V. P. Singh, Shri Bhurelal, Shri Gurumurthy and Shri Vinod Pandey. It was alleged that all the accused used to meet in hotels and private organisations and used to transmit secrets out side the country and thus they were administering slow poison to the whole country. It was alleged that accused persons also fabricated and forged documents and thereby fraudulently obtained public funds and property for their selfish motives. It was alleged that in this task accused No. 1 mis-used foreign exchange in conspiracy with other accused persons for this p















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top