CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1174 · Decided: 21-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
j -
v. 
STA TE OF GUJARAT 
JUNE 21, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s.397-0rder passed by CJM directing CBI to undertake investigation-
Petition before High Court by CBI challenging the order-High Court held 
that CBI ought to have moved Sessions Court-Further imposed cost of 
Rs. /000 holding that CBI had chosen wrong path and it was not respecting 
and adhering to law-On appeal, held: High Court had no basis to doubt 
the bona fides of CBI in moving the said petition-There was no bar for High 
D Court to entertain the same-Criticism leveled against CBI and its officers 
and cost imposed do not have any legal sanction and are set aside. 
Investigation: 
Investigation by CBI-Held: Not to be ordered in routine matters. 
E 
In a criminal case relating to theft of Muddamal, the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate passed an order directing CBI to undertake investigation. The 
prayer by CBI to recall the order was rejected. CBI moved High Court against 
both the orders. The High Court held that the petition was not maintainable 
and the CBI ought to have challenged the orders of the Chief Judicial 
F Magistrate before the Sessions Court in terms of s.397 Cr.P.C and that thus, 
had bypassed the alternative remedy and moved the High Court directly. A 
cost of Rs. 1000/- was also imposed holding that the CBI had chosen a wrong 
path and it was not respecting and adhering to law. 
In appeal to this court, the grievance of CBI is that the concerned case 
G was of routine nature and did not involve any specialized investigation; that 
under s.397 Cr.P.C. either the Sessions Court or the High Court could be 
approached hence the High Court was not right in holding that the CBI had 
bypassed the remedy. 
,. 
I-
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1174 
CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATION,·.STATEOFGUJARAT[PASAYAT.J] 
1175 
HELD: The High Court was not right in its approach. The routine A 
matters should not be entrusted to the CBI as the investigating agencies of 
various States can effecti\·ely im·estigate such matters. Of course, where it 
is shown that the investigating agency is not doing proper investigation and/ 
or that there is reason to believe that there is laxity in the investigation, a 
direction may be given to the CBI to investigate the matter in appropriate B 
cases. This case is not one where any complexity was involved. It was a routine 
case of theft of Muddamal property. The High Court had no basis to doubt the 
bona fides of the CBI in moving the application before it under s.397 Cr.P.C. 
There was no bar for the High Court to entertain the said petition. The 
criticism leveled against the CBI and its officers and cost imposed do not have 
any legal sanction and are set aside. (Para 5111177-C, E, F, GI 
Central Bureau of Investigation through SP. Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan 
and Anr., f 20011 3 SCC 333, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1181 of 
c 
2001. 
l) 
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.04.200 l of the High Court of 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. l 078 of 1999. 
Ashok Bhan, Tufaii A. Khan and P. Panneswaran for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, 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 F 
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.2of1996 came up for hearing and evidence for 
the first time on 7 .1.1999 before Additional Sessions Judge, N adiad 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 tum given to 
G 
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 H 
1176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A Muddamal article No. 2 (Rs. 35000/- i.e. 70 notes of Rs.500/- denomination) 
could not be found therein. Though rigorous search was m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.