LexN.C. DHOUNDIAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
N.C. DHOUNDIAL
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DECEMBER 11, 2003
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act; Section 13(2) r!w Section 13(1)(e)
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Ss. 13, 36(2)/Regulations; Section
C 18(1)(a): Officer-Corrupiion charges-Interrogation by CBI-Allegation
. of harassment/illegal detention/false implication-Complaint to National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC)-Dismissed by NHRC-Review Peti-
tion allowed by NHRC holding that CB/· kept complainant in defacto
custody without any authority of law resulting in violation of his human
rights-Directed CBI to initiate disciplinary action against errant offi-
D cials-Writ Petition filed by CBI officials-Dismissed by High Court-In
writ appeal, High Court directed to maintain status quo-NHRC!com-
plainant!CBI Officials filed special leave petitions/writ petition/transfer
petitions before Supreme Court-Held : Though the Commission is vested
with ancillary.powers to exercise its jurisdiction effectively, it has to act
E within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it,-Section 36(2) of
Protection of Human Rights Act places an embargo against the Commis-
sion taking cognizance in a matter after expiry of one year from the date
of the alleged act of violation of human rights-Though provision of law
procedural in nature, but could act as fetters on jurisdiction-In the facts
and circumstances of the case, concept of continuing wrong could not be
F pressed into service to get over the limitation under the provision of the
Act-In absence of extra-ordinary circumstances, even the relevant Regu-
lation does not empower the Commission to enquire into the complaint
after expiry of one year-Direction of the Commission violative of Article
14 of the Constitution-Hence quashed.
G
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 473 :
'continuing wrong' vis-a-vis 'continuing offence '-Meaning a/-
Discussed-Words and Phrases.
H
CBI conducted a search at the residence of an Officer of the
674
N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA
675
Telecom Department. During investigation he was admitted to a A
hospital. On discharge from the hospital, he was arrested by CBI for
further interrogation. Special Judge, CBI remanded him to judicial
custody with a direction to the prison authority to get him medically
examined. Later, Court granted him provisional bail and directed that
he should be admitted to hospital and interrogated. On investigation, B
charge-sheet was filed under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The Officer filed a complaint before the
National Human Rights Commission alleging false implication, illegal
detention and harassment by CBI. NHRC took cognizance of the
complaint and obtained a report from CBI. It found no substance in C
the complaint and dismissed the same. The Complainant filed another
petition. NHRC treated the petition as Review Petition and held that
the complaint was kept in defacto custody by the CBI Officials without
any authority of law, which has resulted in violation of his human
rights. The Commission directed CBI to initiate appropriate discipli- D
nary proceeding against the errant Officials. Aggrieved, CBI Officers
filed a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. In
. appeal, Division Bench of the High Court issued interim directions to
maintain status quo in the matter. NHRC and the Complainant both
filed special leave petitions against the interim order.
In the meanwhile, one of the CBI officials filed a writ petition
against the order of NHRC before the Supreme Court and Complain-
ant and NHRC filed transfer petitions for transfer of the cases pending
before the High Court. Hence the present Writ Petition and Transfer
Petitions.
Allowing the writ petition and dismissing the Special leave
Petitions and Transfer Petitions, the Court
E
F
HELD : 1.1. The Commission did not afford personal hearing to
the officials who were put on notice nor any opportunity of adducing G
evidence was afforded. The complaint was decided on the basis of
averments in the Review Petition and the replies submitted by the
officials concerned. The plea of the officials was tested broadly on the
basis of probabilities and a conclusion was reached that the officials
concerned were guilty of human rights violation. {684-E}
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
1.2. The Commission which is anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.