Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
E. Valsaraj, M.L.A.
Versus
The Chief Secretary-cum-Home Secretary, Union Territory of Pondicherry and others
Crl.O.P.No.11627 of 1997.
Decided On : 29th October, 1997.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - INVESTIGATION OF COGNISABLE OFFENCES - JURISDICTION OF COURTS - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION - REGISTRATION OF FIR - COUNTER COMPLAINT - SECTION 156, 157, 159 - SECTION 5(1)(E) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 120-B, 116, 34 OF IPC - SECTION 7, 13 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 8, 12 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 116, 34 OF IPC - SECTION 8, 5 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
A sitting MLA of Pondicherry and the whip of the Congress Legislature Party, Mr. E. Valsaraj, approached the court under Section 482, CrPC, seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, CBI (ACB), Madras, to investigate a complaint dated 18.3.1997 preferred to the Inspector General of Police, Union Territory of Pondicherry. The complaint alleged that certain individuals, including the Leader of the Opposition Party, had offered a bribe to the petitioner and other MLAs to defect from their party and destabilize the coalition government. The petitioner also alleged that the Chief Minister and Home Minister had paid a bribe to one of the MLAs to stage-manage the display of money in the Assembly to discredit the opposition. The police had registered two cases based on complaints from other MLAs alleging similar attempts to bribe them, and the investigation of these cases was transferred to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption received the petitioner's complaint and other representations from various political parties and forwarded them to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Madras, for investigation. The petitioner contended that the police had not registered the complaint dated 18.3.1997 and had not conducted a proper investigation, and sought a direction from the court to the CBI to investigate the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition under Section 482, CrPC, was maintainable in view of the decision in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992)1 SCC (Supp.) 335. The court observed that the field of investigation of any cognizable offense is exclusively within the domain of the investigating officers and that the courts cannot interfere with the investigation as long as it proceeds in accordance with the provisions relating to investigation. However, the court also held that in a case where the investigating officer decides not to investigate the offense, the Magistrate or the court can intervene to direct such an investigation. The court further held that the complaint dated 18.3.1997 was being investigated by the CBI in pursuance of the request made by the petitioner, and that there was no need for the court to give a direction to the CBI to investigate the complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition under Section 482, CrPC, was maintainable. 2. Whether the court could direct the CBI to investigate the complaint dated 18.3.1997. 3. Whether the police were required to register the complaint dated 18.3.1997 and conduct a full-scale investigation before conducting a preliminary investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petition under Section 482, CrPC, was maintainable in view of the decision in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992)1 SCC (Supp.) 335. The court observed that the field of investigation of any cognizable offense is exclusively within the domain of the investigating officers and that the courts cannot interfere with the investigation as long as it proceeds in accordance with the provisions relating to investigation. However, the court also held that in a case where the investigating officer decides not to investigate the offense, the Magistrate or the court can intervene to direct such an investigation. 2. The court held that it could not direct the CBI to investigate the complaint dated 18.3.1997 because the complaint was already being investigated by the CBI in pursuance of the request made by the petitioner. 3. The court held that the police were not required to register the complaint dated 18.3.1997 and conduct a full-scale investigation before conducting a preliminary investigation. The court observed that it is well within the powers of the CBI to make a preliminary investigation and then to decide about the registration of the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.
Mr.E.Valsaraj, a sitting M.L.A. in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the whip of the Congress Legislature Party, has approached this Court brought the petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, with the following prayer:
“This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent (Superintendent of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., (ACB), Madras) to investigate the complaint dated 18.3.1997 preferred to 2nd respondent (Inspector General of Police, Union Territory of Pondicherry).”
2. The facts culled out from the petition and the counter, which are relevant and required for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are given under:
(a) One Kandasamy M.L.A. belonging to Tamil Manila Congress preferred a complaint to Kirumambakkam Police Station in Bahour Commune, Pondicherry alleging that in the early hours of 13.3.1997 at about 1.30 midnight the accused persons, namely, (1) D.Ramachandran, (2) Natarajan, (3) Kannan, (4) the driver of one V.Vaithilingam, the Leader of the Opposition Party, and (5) V.Vaithilingam had jointly in furtherence of a common intention offered a sum of Rs.9, 50, 000 to him as reward for doing them a favour in exercise of his legislative duty enabling them to detabilise the present coalition government by defection. This was registered in Crime No.16 of 1997 against the said accused persons.
(b) Another M.L.A. by name Rajasekaran, belonging to T.M.C., preferred yet another complaint to Kattarikuppam Police Station stating that a similar attempt to cause his defection with an offer to pay a handsome amount was made by the above said persons to do a favour in his legislative duty by defecting in their favour. This was registered by the said police in Crime No.18 of 1997 against the above said persons.
(c) Both the complaints were made on the same day, that is, on 13.3.1997 on 17.3.1997, the Home Department, Governement of Union Territory of Pondicherry, directed investigation of both the cases pertaining to the alleged bribing M.L. As. to be transferred to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption). On receipt of this order, the second respondent. Inspector General of Police, Pondicherry, directed both the cases will all the documents pertaining to the investigation to be handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the said Superintendent of Police was also directed to conduct enquiries into these two cases and submit a report to the Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry within three days. Accordingly, the report was submitted on 21.3.1997.
(d) In the meantime, the second respondent, Inspector General of Police was officially corresponding with Joint Director, C.B.I. New Delhi for Transfer of all the cases for investigation.
(e) On 18.3.1997 the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption received through Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, a confidential note sent by the Lt. Governor, enclosing a representation dated 18.3.1997 signed by 9 members of the Legislative Assembly based by V.Vaithilingam, Leader of the Opposition Party, with a direction that the Lt.Governor desired that the aforesaid representation be made as part of the enquiry/investigation into the recent case of bribing of M.L.As. and others.
(f) On the same date, two other representations by three M.L.As. of AIADMK and Convenor D.Ramachandran to the Lt.Governor were also enclosed to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance with direction that these representations be made as part of the enquiry/investigation as in the other one. Even prior to 18.3.1997, that is, on 16.3.1997 Communist Party (Marxist) through its Secretary, Balasubramanian also made a similar representation to the Lt.Governor, which was also forwarded to the S.P. Vigilance with same direction.
(g) On 28.4.1997 the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./ ACB, Madras sent a message requesting Chief Secretary of Pondicherry to direct the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to hand over all the material p
AI
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
