Back
High Court Should Not Suggest of Accused: Supreme Court
The has granted to a retired school principal and his wife accused of tampering with service records, while delivering a sharp rebuke to the for overstepping its bounds. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that the decision on belongs exclusively to the , not the courts.
A Case of Altered Dates
The appellants, Miteshgiri @ Mulrajgiri Sevagiri Goswami and his wife, faced allegations of altering the first appellant's date of birth from to in his official service record. This change allegedly shifted his retirement date and enabled him to draw salary unlawfully from the public exchequer. An FIR was registered at under multiple sections of the , including Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2)(a).
The
rejected their
plea on
, observing that
"
of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth."
The Supreme Court, however, stepped in on
with an
directing that the appellants not be arrested, subject to their cooperation with the investigation.
High Court's Overreach Corrected
Taking strong exception to the High Court's sweeping observation, the Supreme Court made its position unequivocal:
" . "
The bench noted that the High Court's remark had
"jeopardized the rights of other suspects"
and cautioned that such unnecessary observations must be avoided. The court underscored that the allegations against the appellants were "all based on documents" and that
was not warranted, especially since the first appellant was a senior citizen who had already retired as a school principal.
Final Order and Implications
The Supreme Court set aside the 's order dated and made its interim protection absolute. The appellants were directed to continue cooperating with the investigation.
The ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of : courts must not dictate the manner of investigation. By affirming the 's discretion in matters of , the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between and in the criminal justice system.
Key Observations from the Judgment:
-
"
"
-
"
.
"
-
"
of not only the applicant but all other suspects is imperative, the rights of other 'suspects' have been jeopardized.
"
-
"
"
Case Title:
Case No.:
Bench:
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date:
