DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. versus NIYAMAVEDI REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER K. NANDINI, ADVOCATE AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 05-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION AND ORS. 
.\
v. 
'NIYAMAVEDI' REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER 
K. NANDINI, ADVOCATE AND ORS. 
B 
APRIL 5, 1995 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ, K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND 
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
c 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 162 and 172 investiga-
tion-Power of Court to inteifere-<:ourt should refrain from inteifering at 
premanire stage of investigation. 
Statements made to police during investigatiolt-f'olice diary>-Extent of 
D 
use-Permissibility of-Held: Court should refrain from disclosing in its order 
material contained in Police Diaries and statements. 
lnvestigatiolt'-(;omment by High Court on manner of investigation-
) 
Held Court should refrain from making such comments. 
E 
During the investigation of the ISRO Espionage Case the respon-
• 
dent-organisation filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court praying 
that the first respondent, Inspector General of Police, Southern Zone, 
Kerala, be arrested for his alleged involvement in the case and he should 
be suspended from service. The High Court dismissed the petition and the 
Division Bench also dismissed the appeal. However, in order to examine 
i 
F the contention relating to the alleged involvement of the first respondent 
in the crimes in question the Division Bench made reference in its judg-
ment to the material disclosed in the course of the investigation viz., police 
diaries and the statements recorded during the course of investigation. It 
also made comments on the manner of investigation made by the CBI. 
G Against the order of Division Bench Special Leave Petition was filed in this 
Court. 
Disposing of the iletition, this Court 
\.. 
HELD : 1. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only a very 
H limited use can be made of the statements to th• police and police diaries, 
196 
-
C.B.I. v. NJY AMAVED! [S.V. MANOHAR, J.J 
197 
even in the course of the trial, as set out in Sections 162 and 172. The A 
Division Bench, therefore, should have refrained from disclosing in its 
order, material contained in these diaries and statements, especially when 
the investigation in the very case was in progress. It should also have 
refrained from making any comments on the manner in which investiga-
tion was being conducted by the CBI. (199-A, BJ 
2. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the 
increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences. Any 
observations which may amount to interference in the investigation should 
not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a 
premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation 
and demoralise the investigation. (199-D, CJ 
3. Directions given to the Director of CBI in regard to the investiga-
B 
c 
tion matters do not meet with this Court's approval and may be ignored. 
Ignoring the innuendoes the Court was, however, right in expressing a 
general view that the investigating agency is expected to act in an efficient D 
and vigilant manner without being pressurised, and in the dismissing the 
appeal. (199-D, E) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
tion (Cr!.) No. 942 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.95 of the Kerala High E 
Court in Cr!. W.A. No. 1676 of 1994. 
D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor 
General, K. Parasaran, K. Swamy and P .Parmeswaran for the Petitioners. 
A.X. Verghese and M.K. D. Namboordiry for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Investigation regarding Crime 
Nos. 225/94 and 246/94 of Police Station Vanchiyoor, Distt. Thiruvanan- G 
thapuram, Kerala State in what has come to be known as the !SRO 
Espionage Case, were initially carried out by the State Police. On 3rd of 
December, 1994, at the request of the State of Kerala, investigation was 
entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the Government of 
India. Consequently, cases RC lO(S)/94 and RC and RC ll(S)/94 were 
registered in SIC.II Branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation. On H 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A completion of investigation in RC lO(S)/94, a chargesheet has been filed 
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, ~erala on 17th of Decem-
ber, 1994. Investigation of case RC ll(S)/94 is continuing. 
After the entrustment of the investigation to the Central Bureau of 
Investigation on 3rd of December, 1994, and while the investigation was in 
B prog
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.