LexHEMA versus STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 1 HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2013) JANUARY 7, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOi AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120B and 420 rlw. ss. 511, 465 I A B and 471 - Prosecution under - For offence of criminal C conspiracy to cheat Passport Office, in order: to obtain passports on the basis of ante-dated passport applications with duplicate file numbers accompanied by forged enclosures - Conviction by courts below - Held: Prosecution proved its case - Supreme Court not to interfere with D concurrent findings offacts by courts below except where there is serious infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and the findings are perverse - Conviction confirmea ...:. -However, in view of the fact that the accused has a small child, sentence reduced to six months from two years - Constitution of India, E 1950 - Article 136. Investigation - Parallel investigation - By State Police and by CBI - Permissibility - Held: In the instant case investigation was initiated by State Police and subsequently taken over by CBI considering the volume and importance of F offence - There is no infirmity in continuing the investigation by CBI in view of s. 5 (3) of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - s_ 5(3). Criminal Trial - Defective investigation - Effect of - Held: Mere defect in investigation and lapse on the part of . Investigating Officer cannot be a ground for acquittal - It is 1 G H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A for the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses. Appellan·t-accused No. 5, alongwith four other accused persons i.e. A-1 to A-4 was prosecuted u/ss. 8 120B, 420, 465 and 471 IPC. It was alleged that A-5, an employee of a travel agency run by A-3, along with other accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Regional Passport office to obtain 42 passports on the basis of ante-dated passport applications with duplicate file numbers and forged enclosures such as C police verification certificates etc. Initially the case was investigated by the State Police, but subsequently the investigation was taken up by CBI. Thereafter the Special court for CBI cases convicted the appellant-accused No.5 u/ss. 120B, 420 r/w ss. 511, 465 and 471 IPC. She was D sentenced to R1 for 2 years with a default clause. A-1 to A-3 were· also convicted. High Court confirmed the order of the Special Court. Instant appeal was filed by A-5. She contended that E the entire investigation needed to be thrown out, as the parallel proceedings by the State Police and the CBI are not permissible; that original seals and rubber stamps were not produced to prove that the seals and stamps were forged; that prosecution failed to exhibit the FSL F report with regard to the impression of seals of MOs. 1 to 3 recovered at the instance of A-3; that specimen signatures of PW-16 and PW-29 were not sent to the hand- writing expert; that the seal and specimen signatures of attesting officer (PW 18) was not collected by CBI to prove G them to be forged; that there was no document or indication in Ex. P-3 to P-43 to show that they were sent by the travel agency of A-3; and that certificates issued by Village Administrative Officers that the applicants were not the residents of the place mentioned in the H HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 3 MADRAS application form, have no legal sanctity in the absence of A certification by Tehsildar. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is settled law that not only fair trial, but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights B guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious and it is the immediate requirement of rule of law. In the instant case, though the State Crime Branch initiated investigation, subsequently, C the same was taken over by the CBI considering the volume and importance of the offence. [Para 8] [12-B-E] Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2010 (12) SCC 254: 2010 (10) 'scR 651 - distinguished. 1.2. Mere defects in the investigation and lapse on the part of the 1.0., cannot be a ground for acquittal. Further, even if there had been negligence on the part of D the investigating agency or omissions etc., it is the obligation on the part of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.