Investigation: Transfer of investigation to CBI – The petitioner posted in the Ministry of Health was allegedly involved in the illegal manufacture and sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala and named as an accused in the FIR – The stated crime was being investigated by the State Vigilance Commission, constituted by the State of Tamil Nadu, headed by a Vigilance Commissioner – Writ of mandamus issued by High Court to transfer the investigation to CBI – Petitioner challenged writ of mandamus on four counts – First, that the prayer for transfer of investigation of the crime in question to the CBI was already considered and negatived by the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court – Second, the petitioner though named as an accused in the FIR was not given an opportunity of hearing nor was made a party in the public interest litigation in which the impugned judgment was passed and third, the writ petition filed as public interest litigation was politically motivated having been filed by a member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu – Held: High Court was alive to the fact that the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court had occasion to decide writ petition – The Coordinate Bench had noted that the investigation of the crime was in progress and that it was not necessary to transfer the inquiry/investigation to CBI – These aspects were duly taken note of in the impugned judgment – Thus, it is not a case of disregarding the binding decision or precedent of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court – Secondly, the question regarding the necessity to ensure a fair and impartial investigation of the crime, for instilling confidence in the minds of the victims as well as public at large, the High Court predicated that it was but necessary to entrust the investigation of such a crime to CBI – Viewed thus, there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the High Court for having entrusted the investigation to CBI – By entrusting the investigation to CBI which, was imperative in the peculiar facts of the present case, the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition or for that matter, was not heard, is of no avail – That per se cannot be the basis to label the impugned judgment as a nullity – Regarding last contention, the political opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House and are the watchdogs of the Government in power – They are the mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at large, if genuinely and unbiasedly projected – High Court noted in the impugned judgment that a petition filed by such persons cannot be brushed aside on the allegation of political vendetta, if otherwise, it is genuine and raises a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of bias in the dispensation of criminal justice system – Accordingly, the ground of challenge under consideration is devoid of merits.
Investigation: Right of hearing – A person who is named as an accused in the FIR, who otherwise has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation or to have an opportunity of hearing as a matter of course, cannot be heard to say that the direction issued to transfer the investigation to CBI is a nullity. Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India and Ors.
(2014) 8 SCC 768 : [2014] 6 SCR 783 ; Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 160 : [2016] 1 SCR 194 ; K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 767: [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 610 – relied on.
D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v. M.K. Mohan
Krishnamachari & Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 488 : [2009]
14 SCR 441 – distinguished.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540 ; Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2014)
4 SCC 626 : [2014] 3 SCR 932 ; Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 65 : [2009] 8 SCR 1004 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.