MANIYARI MADHVAN versus SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 22-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MANIYARI MADH~ VAN 
v. 
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 
(M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. ANDS. MOHAN, J.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142-Supreme Cowt's direction for 
investigation by C.B.l.-Procedure to be followed--Held, procedure under s.6 
of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, need not be followed where the 
C Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142. 
D 
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 : S.6-Delhi Special 
Police Establishment-Jurisdiction of-lnvestigation in a State-Consent of 
State Government-Held, not required where investigation is directed by 
Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. 
The petitioner, a journalist and editor of a newspaper, filed a 
criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court alleging criminal 
assault on person and property at the instance of the police officers of the 
State. He prayed for a direction to investigate into the matter by an 
E 
impartial agency. The High Court directed the Deputy Inspector General, 
Northern Range of the State to look into the complaint of the petitioner. 
The petitioµer filed the special leave petition against the order of the 
High Court seeking direction for investigation by the C.B.I. This Court 
declined to grant the prayer but gave a diretion on 22.12.1989 that another 
F 
Deputy Inspector General of the State Police, named in the order, would 
supervise the investigation, and the same be completed within the time 
granted. But the investigation was not completed within the time frame. 
The officer supervising the investigation was also sent on deputation 
without the orders of this Court. In the circumstances, this Court felt that 
G the conduct and progress of the investigation of the case was such as not 
to inspire confidence. It recalled the earlier order, and directed the C.B.I. 
to investigate the complaint of the petitioner, complete the investigation 
and make a report to this Court. 
The C.B.I. filed its investigation report stating that the evidence 
H collected revealed commission of offences enumerated therein and that the 
406 
M. MADHAVAN v. S.I. OF POLICE [MOHAN, J.) 
407 
person named be prosecuted for those offences. 
A 
The respondents contended that the Delhi Special Police Estab· 
Iishment could not investigate into the matter unless the State Government 
accorded consent for the exercise of power under s.6 of the Delhi Special 
Police Establishment Act, 1946. It was also contended that in view of the 
facts of the case the trial could not be held and this Court can direct that B 
no trial need take place. 
Disposing of the special leave petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. As regards jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi 
Special Police Establishment, the procedure under s.6 of the Delhi Special C 
Police Establishment Act, 1946 need not be followed where this Court 
exercises jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. Even other· 
wise, a notification dated 3.10.1992 was issued by the State Government 
according the consent as required under s.6 of the Act. [ 413-C-F] 
2. Whether the police officers are guilty or not of the offences for 
which they are charged is a matter to be established in a criminal trial. 
[413-B] 
3. The investigation report submitted by the C.B.I. is recorded. 
[410-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Peti-
tion (Crl.) No. 2755 of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.89 of the Kerala High Court 
in Crl. Misc. No. 328 of 1989. 
K.N. Balgopal and C.N. Sreekumar for the petitioner. 
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, U.R. Lalit, M.K. 
Michael, M.A. Firoz, M.T. George and Ranjan Mukherjee for the respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
F 
G 
MOHAN, J. The Special Leave Petition is directed against the order 
made in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 328 of 1988 before the High Court of 
Kerala. The respondent herein filed the said Crl. Misc. Petition against the 
officers of Cannanor Town Police and others alleging criminal assault on H 
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
his printing press. In that petition he sought a direction to investigate into 
the matter by an impartial agency. 
B 
c 
The short facts are Maniyeri Madhavi is a journalist and is the editor 
of newspaper by name 'Sudinam Evening Daily'. He complained of an 
attack on his person and property at the instance of the police officers of 
the State. The High Court in a writ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.