LexKIRAN BEDI & ORS. versus COMMITIEE OF INQUIRY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KIRAN BEDI & ORS. v. COMMITIEE OF INQUIRY & ANR. AUGUST 18, 1988 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, M.M. DUTT AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.l Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952/Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972: Sections 8B, BC/Rule 5(5)(a)-Committee of Inquiry-Examination of witnesses-DelhiAdministraJion directed to G examine its witnesses first-Right of cross-examination-Some of the similarly placed persons to be cross-examined in the beginning and others at the end of the inquiry is discriminatory-Non-issuance of notice by Committee to a person makes no difference if that person satisfies the statutory conditions. D A Committee consisting of Goswamy and Wadhwa, JJ. was con- stituted on 23rd February, 1988 to inquire into certain incidents involv- ing lawyers and police officers, which took place in January, 1988. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 2.6.88 to reconsider the whole. question relating to the order in which the witnesses had to be ij examined, the Committee issned an order on 29.6.88 on the basis of which notices under Sec. SB were issued to three other officers, bot not to the petitioners. It was directed by the Committee that the petitioners be cross-examined at the beginning of the inqnlry. On their refusal, the Committee directed the nting of a complaint against them for an offence punishable under Section 178 IPC. PursuantJo the complaints med on p behalf of the Committee, criminal proceedings were Initiated against ·the petitfoners hefpre the Metropolitan Magistrate. Against the above directions and complaints by the Committee, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petitions/Special Leave Petitions. The petitioners submitted that they did not either wish .to delay the proceedings or to show disrespect to the Committee, but only wanted to protect their own interest in making the submission before the Committee as per the legal advice given to them. H Quashing the orders of the Committee directing the Ollng of1!.ie 518 k-IRAN BED! v, COMMITIEE OF INQUIRY 519 I -complaints- and the cril1)lnal proceedings Initiated against the peti- A tioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate pursuant to the complaints, this Court, HELD: 1. The Delhi Administration has to examine first all its witnesses as required by Rule S(S)(a) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 framed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, B 1952. Even those witnesses who may have filed affidavits afready may first be examined in chief before they are cross-examined. The question whether a party bas the right of cross-examination or not shall be decided by the Committee in accordance with Sec. SC of the' Act. This direction does not apply to those witnesses falling under Sec. SB ofthe Act, who have to be examined at the end of the inquiry as opined by the C Committee itself, [520F -HI 2.1. The petitioners are persons who fall under Sec. SB of the Act and have to be dealt with accordingly~ [522A-BJ 2.2 If the three persons to whom notices under Sec. SB have been . issued are to be examined even according to the Committee at the end of D the inquiry there is no justifiable reason to deny the same treatment to the petitioners who are in the same position as those three persons. The action of the Committee in asking them to be cross-examined at the beginning of the inquiry appears to be discriminatory. Mere non-Issue of notices to them under Sec.SB ought not to make any difference if they otherwise satisfy the conditions mentioned In Sec. SB. The Issue of such E a notice Is not contemplated under Sec. SB of the Act. It ls enough lfat any stage the Commission considers it necessary to inquire Into the conduct of any person. Such person would thereafter be governed by Sec. SB oftbe Act. [522E·Gl 3. The Committee should not have, in the circumstances onbe F case, directed the filing of a complaint against either of the petitioners for an offence punishable under Sec. 178 IPC. [523C, D] . [For Judgment containing the rea.sons' for this 'order, please ~c (1989) 1·scR p. zlf.T · ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT-ION: Writ G Petition No. 626 of 1988 etc, etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, S. Murlidharan, A.D.N. :Rao, A. Sobba Rao and KrishairKumar for the Petitioners. H 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.