LexANUKUL CHANDRA PRADHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ANUKULCHANDRAPRADHAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 7, 1996
B
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950 :
Articles 21 and 32---C.B.l. inquiry against public functionaries-Direc-
C tions by this Court to investigate into the accusations against the persons
concemed--Charge-sheets filed by C.B.I. in three cases-Held, in view of the
fact that charge-sheets have been filed in the cases in competent court, it is
that court which is now to deal with the case on merits-Any direction
considered necessary for further investigation etc. is within the domain of the
court concemetJ-.,.1he purpose of this proceeding it to command perf onnance
D of the duty under law to property investigate into the accusation of commis-
sion of the crime and to file a charge-sheet in the competent court if a prima
facie case is made out....:..1his purpose has been served in three cases-This
proceeding has come to an end in so far as it relates to the said three Criminal
Cases--For the remaining part it is to continue till the end result prescribed
E by law is achieved-Unless prevented by any dilatory tactics of the accused,
all trials of this kind involving public men should be concluded most ex-
peditiously preferably within three months of commencement of the trial.
F
G
Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1996) 2 SCC 199,
referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 640 of
1995.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Anil B. Divan, (AC), Mukul Mudgal, (AC), (Anukul Chandra Prad-
han) (In-person), A.K. Sahu and R.S. Sodh~ for the Petitioners.
Ashok Desai, Attorney General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor
General, Dr. AM. Singhvi, (Sushi! Kr. Jain), (NP), P. Parmeshwaran,
H Pallav Sisodia and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents.
212
....
AC. PRADHAN v. U.0.1.
213
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The nature of this proceeding is similar to that of W.P. {Crl.) Nos.
340-343of1993 - Veneet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India Ors., It was made
clear at the outset and reiterated from time to time in this proceeding to
A
the Revenue Secretary, Director of C.B.I. and the other Government
officials that the orders made in W.P. {Crl.) Nos. 340-343of 1993 regarding B
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.
For ready reference, an extract from one such order of particular C
significance is· quoted herein for emphasis. The order is dated 30-1-1996,
reported in [1996j 2 sec 199, wherein it was said :
"3. The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate
tha~ it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined
thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all government agencies, D
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 apinst each and every E
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 concerned with the merits of p
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 accord-
ance 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.
G
(Paras 3, 4, 5)
H
A
B
c
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
In accordance with the directions so given, it has been reported to
us that chargesheets 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) LakhubhaiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.