Investigation: Preliminary enquiry report of Superintendent of Police – Non-disclosure of – On facts, in a corruption case against the appellant-Cabinet Minister, the High Court ordered a preliminary enquiry by a Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and who in turn submitted a final report – High Court obtained the report, however, without furnishing a copy thereof to the appellant, unceremoniously closed the writ petition – Held: When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover – It was the High Court which had ordered that a preliminary enquiry be conducted and a report be submitted by the special investigating officer – However, once the enquiry was completed, the High Court failed to even peruse the said report – Rather, the High Court left the decision completely in the hands of the State Government – Such an approach, cannot be countenanced in law– When the State Government changed its stand that now they intended to conduct further investigation in the matter, the High Court neither provided the appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a reasoned justification from the State for having turned turtle – Principles of natural justice demanded that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based on the material that had exonerated him initially, which was originally accepted by the State – Thus, the High Court directed to supply a copy of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police along with the other documents to the appellant and the Writ Petition are restored on the file of the High Court – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 13(2) ,13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) – Penal Code – ss. 109, 120, 409 and 420 –
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has committed a patent error in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion. Without considering the material before it, and by merely relying on the submissions made by the State, the High Court made sweeping observations which are prejudicial to the appellant. It was the High Court which had ordered that a preliminary enquiry be conducted and a report be submitted by the special invest igat ing off icer. However, once t he enquiry w as completed, the High Court failed to even peruse the said report. Rather, the High Court left the decision completely in the hands of the State Government. Such an approach, as adopted by the High Court cannot be countenanced in law. [Para 20][1075-F-G]
1.2. It is a settled principle that the State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. When the State Government changed its stand, the High Court neither provided the appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a reasoned justification from the State for having turned turtle. Although the High Court directed the appellant to file a counter affidavit in the writ proceedings, the State hastened to register the said FIR on 09.08.2021. [Para 21][1075-H; 1076-A-B]
1.3. The initial affidavit filed by the State was categorical that they did not intend to pursue action against the appellant. However the subsequent change of stand by the State clearly contradicts the expectation brought about by the initial affidavit. The principles of natural justice demanded that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based on the material that had exonerated him initially, which was originally accepted by the State. [Para 22][1076-B-C]
1.4. The State has contended that the accused would be entitled to access the report only after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of Section 207 of the CrPC and any production of the documents beyond the ambit of aforesaid section, is untenable in law. The contention of the State may be appropriate under normal circumstances wherein the accused is entitled to all the documents relied upon by the prosecution after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of Section 207 of CrPC. It is held that the mandate of Section
207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of the appellant-accused as well as to the principles of natural justice. [Paras 24, 26][1076-D-H; 1077-A]
In Re: Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding
Inadequacies and Deficiencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2021) 10 SCC 598 –
Distinguished.
1.5. It must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 27][1077-A-B]
1.6 When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover. [Para 28][1077-B-C]
1.7. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the instant case, particularly the fact that the High Court had ordered an enquiry and obtained a report without furnishing a copy thereof to the appellant and unceremoniously closed the writ petition, the following directions are issued: that the High Court is directed to supply a copy of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police along with the other documents to the appellant herein ; that the Writ Petition No. 34845 of 2018 and Crl.O.P. No. 23428 of 2018 are restored on the file of the High Court of Madras ; and that the High Court is direct ed t o dispose of the cases on their own merit, uninfluenced by any observation made. [Para 29][1077-C-E]
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.