Important Points
Routine matters where there is no complexity, should not be entrusted to the CBI.
Although Sessions Court or the High Court could be moved u/s 397, there was no bar for the High Court to entertain the said petition.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 156 (3) – Where FIR is already registered, section 156(3) has no application – The court below should not have directed the CBI to take up investigation after the FIR was lodged – Secondly, routine matters like the instant case of theft of Muddamal property where there is no complexity, should not be entrusted to the CBI – The Sessions judge rightly set aside the order. (Para 5)
       (2001) 3 SCC 333 – Relied upon.
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – U/s 397 either the Sessions Court or the High Court could be approached – High Court holding that the CBI ought to have first exhausted the remedy of moving before the Sessions court – Deprecating the action of CBI in moving the High Court directly, it imposed a cost – When the CBI moved before the High Court u/s 397, there was no bar for the High Court to entertain the said petition – The High Court had no basis to doubt the bona fides of the CBI in moving the application before it under Section 397 – The criticism levelled against the CBI and its officers and cost imposed do not have any legal sanction, accordingly set aside. (Para 5)
       Facts of the case :
       During the hearing of the Special A.C. B. Case No.2 of 1996 in the bag containing Muddamal article No.2 (Rs.35000/- i.e. 70 notes of Rs.500/- denomination) could not be found therein. Ultimately a criminal complaint was filed in Nadiad Town Police Station which was registered as ICR No. 22/99 for the offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) by the Court Officer. When the Investigating Officer, Nadiad Town Police Station, Nadiad could not get any fruitful result in the matter for about 9 months, the Nazir of the District Court of Kheda at Nadiad wrote a letter dated 29.9.1999 to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad requesting therein to hand over the investigation of the case to the CBI. On 29.9.1999 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad passed an order directing the CBI to investigate the matter and report to him at the earliest. The CBI’s application for recalling the order was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court observed that the CBI was a litigant before the Court like any other litigant and it cannot be placed in a special category or in a privileged category. According to the High Court, prima facie that appears to be the claim of the appellant. It was held that the petition was not maintainable and the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have been challenged before the Sessions Court in terms of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Certain observations against the CBI were also made and a cost was imposed.
       Findings of the Court :
       There was no bar for the High Court to entertain the said petition. The High Court had no basis to doubt the bona fides of the CBI in moving the application before it under Section 397, Cr. P.C. The criticism levelled against the CBI and its officers and cost imposed do not have any legal sanction.

Judgement Key Points

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

Routine matters where there is no complexity should not be entrusted to the CBI, as the investigation of such cases can be effectively handled by the local investigating agencies (!) (!) .
The High Court correctly held that the CBI is a litigant like any other and cannot be placed in a privileged position; therefore, petitions challenging orders related to investigation should be filed before the appropriate courts, such as the Sessions Court, under the relevant procedural provisions (!) (!) .
The High Court was justified in observing that the CBI bypassed the proper remedy by directly approaching the High Court instead of first approaching the Sessions Court, which was the appropriate forum (!) .
The High Court's criticism of the CBI and the imposition of costs lacked legal sanction and were not justified, as there was no basis to doubt the bona fides of the CBI in moving the petition under the relevant section of the criminal procedure code (!) .
The investigation in this case involved a routine theft of Muddamal property, which did not involve any special complexity, and therefore, the decision to direct the CBI to investigate was unwarranted (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that under the relevant procedural provisions, either the Sessions Court or the High Court could be approached for such matters, but the proper procedure was to first seek remedy through the Sessions Court (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the High Court setting aside the earlier orders and criticizing the CBI were reversed, emphasizing that the CBI's actions were bona fide and within the scope of law (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.Challenge in this appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI”) is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the petition filed to set aside the orders dated 29.9.1999 and 26.10.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad. By the first order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had directed the investigation of the case to be undertaken by CBI. By the latter order, the prayer to recall the earlier order was rejected.

2.The brief facts are as follows :

“Special A.C. B. Case No.2 of 1996 came up for hearing and evidence for the first time on 7.1.1999 before Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad and at that time the Bench Clerk of the aforesaid court called for Muddamal from the office of Nazir, which was given to the clerk Shri Shukla and in turn given to Shri Kiran Joshi, Senior Clerk. During the recording of the evidence of the witnesses when Muddamal was required to be identified, in the bag containing Muddamal article No.2 (Rs.35000/- i.e. 70 notes of Rs.500/- denomination) could not be found therein. Though rigorous search was made but the said Muddamal was not found and ultimately a criminal complaint was filed in Nadiad Town Police Station which was registered as ICR No. 22/99 for the offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) by the Court Officer. The Investigating Officer, Nadiad Town Police Station, Nadiad could not get any fruitful result in the matter for about 9 months. The Nazir of the District Court of Kheda at Nadiad wrote a letter dated 29.9.1999 to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad requesting therein to hand over the investigation of the case to the CBI. On 29.9.1999 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad passed an order directing the CBI to investigate the matter and report to him at the earliest. The CBI through its Public Prosecutor filed an application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad praying therein for recalling of the order dated 29.9.1999. This application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad under its order dated 6.10.1999. The High Court was moved against both the orders.

3.The High Court observed that the CBI was a litigant before the Court like any other litigant and it cannot be placed in a special category or in a privileged category. According to the High Court, prima facie that appears to be the claim of the appellant. It was held that the petition was not maintainable and the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have been challenged before the Sessions Court in terms of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’). It was held that the CBI ought to have taken care to move the proper court and instead of that the CBI, bypassed the alternative remedy and moved the High Court directly. After having said so, the High Court felt that the approach of the CBI deserved to be deprecated and was deprecated. A cost of Rs. 1000/- was imposed holding that the CBI had chosen a wrong path and it was not respecting and adhering to law. TheDirector of CBI was directed to hold an inquiry in the matter and whoever was found responsible for filing the petition before the High Court was to reimburse the cost to be deposited by the CBI. It was further directed that the inquiry as directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was to be completed within six months.

4.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The CBI was not a litigant. In fact without giving an opportunity to it, the order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing it to take over the investigation. Had an opportunity been granted, it could have been shown to the court that the concerned case was of a routine nature and did not involve any specialised investigation. Therefore, it was not proper for the Court to direct the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 910

2007(5) Supreme 620Supreme Court of India(From Gujarat High Court)Dr. Arijit Pasayat & B.P. Singh, JJ.Central Bureau of Investigation — PetitionerversusState of Gujarat — RespondentAppeal (crl.) 1181 of 2001Decided on : 21-06-2007

Important PointsRoutine matters where there is no complexity, should not be entrusted to the CBI.Although Sessions Court or the High Court could be moved u/s 397, there was no bar for the High Court to entertain the said petition.

Cases Referred (1)

2007(5) Supreme 620
Supreme Court of India
(From Gujarat High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation — Petitioner
versus
State of Gujarat — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1181 of 2001
Decided on : 21-06-2007

Important Points
Routine matters where there is no complexity, should not be entrusted to the CBI.
Although Sessions Court or the High Court could be moved u/s 397, there was no bar for the High Court to entertain the said petition.