VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Trials in St. Kitts Forgery case, Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating case and Rajendra Jain case, involving public men should be concluded most expeditiously preferably within three months of commencement of the trial.

Headnote:INVESTIGATION-Constitution of India - Article 32-Mode of functioning of government agencies-Legal duty to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every accusation against every person-When charge sheet filed in competent court-It is that court which is to deal with case on merits-Purpose of this proceeding is to command performance of duty to properly investigate and to file a chargesheet in competent court if a prima facie case made out-This proceeding come to end relating to cases in St. Kitts Forgery case, Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating case and Rajendra Jain case-Trials of this kind involving public men should be concluded preferably within three months-Essentials of fair trial to be observed.
       Held : The purpose of this proceeding is to command performance of the duty under law to properly investigate into the accusation of commission of the crime and to file a chargesheet in the competent court, if a prima facie case is made out. This purpose has been served in the above three cases, in respect of which no further action in this proceeding is called for. (Para 4)
       Further held that the concerned court dealing with the above matters has to bear in mind that utmost expedition in the trial and its early conclusion is necessary for the ends of justice and credibility of the judicial process. Unless prevented by any dilatory tactics of the accused, all trials of this kind involving public men should be concluded most expeditiously, preferably within three months of commencement of the trial. This is also the requirement of speedy trial read into Article 21. (Para 6)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The primary purpose of the proceeding was to ensure that government agencies perform their legal duty to fairly, properly, and fully investigate every accusation against any person, and to file a chargesheet in a competent court if a prima facie case is established (!) (!) .
The proceedings emphasized that once a chargesheet is filed under the relevant criminal procedure, the case is to be dealt with on its merits by the competent court, which is responsible for proceeding in accordance with law (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation and prosecution of cases involving public figures should be conducted with utmost expedition, ideally within three months from the start of the trial, to uphold the ends of justice and the credibility of the judicial process. This requirement is linked to the constitutional right to a speedy trial [Para 6] (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The proceedings clarified that they do not concern the merits of the accusations or the individuals involved but focus solely on ensuring that law enforcement agencies fulfill their legal duties in investigating and prosecuting crimes (!) (!) .
Once chargesheets are filed, the concerned courts are responsible for handling the cases independently, without influence from any ongoing proceedings in this or other courts, and must proceed expeditiously while safeguarding the principles of a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The order underscores the importance of maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of government agencies and the judicial process, emphasizing that investigations must be conducted thoroughly and without bias, regardless of the status or position of the accused (!) (!) .
The document also highlights that any observations made during these proceedings are not to influence the merits of the case or the trial itself, ensuring the integrity and fairness of the judicial process (!) .
The order concludes by directing that copies of this order be sent to the relevant courts handling the cases, and that the proceedings in this matter are to continue only with respect to incomplete aspects, with the remaining process to proceed in accordance with law (!) (!) .

These points collectively emphasize the importance of expeditious and fair investigation and trial processes, especially in cases involving public figures, to uphold justice and public confidence.

ORDER

The nature of this proceeding is similar to that of Vineet Narian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1 It was made clear at the outset and reiterated from time to time in this proceeding to the Revenue Secretary, Director of C.B.I, and the other Government officials that the orders made in W.P. (Cri.) Nos. 340-343 of 1993 regarding the mode of functioning of all the officials equally apply in the present case also. This is how, we have been assured by the learned Attorney General, is the mode of functioning of all the officials in the present case also. It is needless to say that this manner of functioning by them has to continue.

2. For ready reference, an extract from one such order of particular significance is quoted herein for emphasis. The order is dated 30.01.1996, reported in 1996(2) SCC 1992, wherein it was said :

"3. The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all government agencies, entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you." Investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the government agencies.

4. In this proceeding we are not con cerned with the merits of the accusations or the individuals alleged to be involved, but only with the performance of the legal duty by the government agencies to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every such accusation against every person, and to take the logical final action in accordance with law.

5. In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is made out and a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court, it is that court which will then deal with that case on merits, in accordance with law. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

3. In accordance with the directions so given, it has been reported to us that charge-sheets have been filed by the C.B.I, in two cases and the Delhi Police in "one case which they were investigating. These cases are :

(1) St. Kitts Forgery Case.

(Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)

(2) Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating Case.

(Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)

(3) Rajendra Jain Case.

(Chargesheet filed by Delhi Police.)

4. In view of the fact that chargesheet has been filed under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code in each of the above three cases in the competent court, it is that court which is now to deal with the case on merits, in accordance with law. Any direction considered necessary for further investigation, if any, or to proceed against any other person who also appears to have committed any offence in that transaction, is within the domain of the concerned court according to the procedure prescribed by law. The purpose of this proceeding is to command performance of the duty under law to properly investigate into the accusation of commission of the crime and to file a chargesheet in the competent court, if a prima facie case is made out. This purpose has been served in the above three cases, in respect of which no further action in this proceeding is called for.

5. Accordingly, this proceeding has come to an end, in so far as it relates to the above three criminal cases. For the remaining part, it is to continue till the end result prescribed by law is achieved. The concerned court in which the chargesheet has been filed has to proceed entirely in accordance with law without the slightest impression that there is any parallel proceeding in respect of the same matter pending in this court.

6. We may also observe, that the concerned court dealing with the above matters has to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1629

VERY IMPORTANT POINTTrials in St. Kitts Forgery case, Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating case and Rajendra Jain case, involving public men should be concluded most expeditiously preferably within three months of commencement of the trial.

Cases Referred (2)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Trials in St. Kitts Forgery case, Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating case and Rajendra Jain case, involving public men should be concluded most expeditiously preferably within three months of commencement of the trial.