HEMANT DHASMANA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 17-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HEMANT DHASMANA 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. 
AUGUST 17, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 
Chapter XU-Section 173(8)-Power under-Scope of-Complaint 
C under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-/nvestigation by CBI-Its report 
contrary to a/legations in complaint-Special Judge ordering further 
investigation by an officer of particular rank-Held, Special Judge has 
power to order for further investigation, though the Section does not 
specifical(y mention about the power-However, he does not have power to 
D specify a particular officer to Conduct Investigation .. 
E 
Chapter XII-Section 173(2)-/nvestigation under for offences under 
Preventipn of Corruption Act-Held applicable to CBI official as well-
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988. 
Appellant made complaint under Prevention of Corruption Act. After 
investigation of the case, the final report filed by CBI was found contrary to 
the allegations in the complaint. The Special Judge after hearing the complaint 
ordered the CBI to re-investigate the matter and further ordered to depute 
an officer of the rank of DIG of CBI to re-investigate the matter. On appeal 
F High Court held that there was no case for any fresh investigation or for 
any further investigation and deprecated the direction of the Special Judge 
for specifying an officer to conduct the investigation. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the High Court should 
not have interfered with the order of the Special Judge, particularly when 
G the said order did not contain any final conclusion on the report. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. I. When the CBI report is against the allegations contained 
in the complaint and concluded that no offence has been committed by any 
646 
HEMANT DHASMANA v. C.B.I. 
647 
person it is open to the Court to accept the report after hearing the complainant A 
at whose behest the investigation had commenced. If the Court feels, on a 
persual of such a report that the alleged offences have in fact been committed 
by some persons, the Court has the power to ignore the contrary conclusions 
made by the investigating officer in the final report. Then it is open to the 
Court to independently apply its mind to the facts emerging therefrom and B 
it can even take cognizance of the offences which appear to him to have been 
committed, in exercise of his power under Section 190(1) (b), Cr.P.C. The 
third option is the one adumbrated in Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. Although the 
said sub-section does not, in specific terms, mention about the powers of the 
Court to order further investigation the power uf the police to conduct 
further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into motion at the C 
instance of the Court. [652-E-G; 653-B[ 
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr., [19851 2 SCC 
537; Mis. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., [ 19891 2 SCC 
132 and Union Public Service Commission v. S.Papaiah and Ors., [19971 7 
sec 614, referred to. 
1.2 However, it is not within the province of the Magistrate while 
exercising the power under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. to specify any particular 
officer to conduct such investigation, not even to suggest the rank of the 
officer who should conduct such investigation. [654-GI 
2. When the final report is laid after conclusion of the investigation 
the Court has the power to consider the same and issue notice to the 
complainant to be heard in case the conclusions in the final report are not 
D 
E 
in concurrence with the allegations made by them. Though the investigation 
was conducted by the CBI, the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. F 
would apply to such investigation. 'Police' referred to in the Chapter, for the 
purpose of investigation , would apply to the officer/officers of the Delhi 
Police Establishment Act. On completion of the investigation the report has 
to be filed by the CBI in the manner provided in Section 173 (2) of the Code, 
with the exception that the Magistrate referred to in the section would be 
understood as a Special Judge when the offences involved are under the G 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [651-E-GI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No, 
829 of 200 I. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2000 of the Allahabad High H 
648 
SUPREME COUR I REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Court in Crl. R. No. 146 of 1998. 
B 
c 
R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.