NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA versus STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 725 · Decided: 16-10-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

NA VINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 197 3-Ss. 156, 157 and 2(h)-Po/ice 
Investigation-Delay due to financial crunch of the State-High Court 
directing a private party to supply funds for investigation-Validity of-Held, C 
statutory investigating agency cannot be directed to obtain financial 
assistance from private parties for meeting the expenses of investigation-
High Court's directions set aside. 
Words & Phrases 
"Investigation "-Meaning of in the context of S.2(h) of the Criminal D 
Procedure Code, 1973. 
A Shillong based Company entered into certain transactions with a 
Bombay based Company. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the Shillong 
based Company with the local police that the Bombay based Company had E 
cheated it to the tune of crores of Rupees. Since the investigation in the case 
did not move fast, the complainant company filed a writ petition before the 
High Court. A single Judge of the High Court passed an order directing the 
complainant company to supply funds for investigation. Respondent-State 
unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. 
Appellant's writ petition before the High Court of Bombay for quashing the F 
FIR was also dismissed solely on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction 
to deal with an FIR lodged at Shillong. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A statutory investigating agency cannot be directed to obtain G 
financial assistance from private parties for meeting the expenses required 
for conducting the investigation. Thus, the directions issued by the High Court 
for supplying funds for investigation is set aside. [729-A-B] 
1.2. Financial crunch of any state treasury is no justification for 
725 
H 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such 
investigation. Augmentation of the fiscal resources of the State for meeting 
the expenses needed for such investigations is the lookout of the executive. 
Failure to do it is no premise for directing a complainant to supply funds to 
the investigating officer. Such funding by interested private parties would 
B vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Criminal Procedure Code. A 
vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. 
Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply 
financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped 
in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimature. [732-B-C) 
C 
1.3. Official investigation has to be totally extricated from any extraneous 
influence. The police investigation should necessarily be with the fund supplied 
by the State. It may be possible for a rich complainant to supply any amount of 
fund to the police for conducting investigation into his complaint. But a poor 
man cannot afford to supply any financial assistance to the police. Under the 
constitutional scheme, the police and other statutory investigating agency cannot 
D be allowed to be hackneyed by those who can afford it. All complaints shall be 
investigated with equal alacrity and with equal fairness irrespective of the 
financial capacity of the person lodging the complaint. (731-F, G, H; 732-A] 
HN Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR (1955) SC 196; State of Madhya 
E Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, AIR (1959) SC 707; v. Sirajjuddin v. State of Madras, 
[1970) 3 SCR 931; State of Rajasthan v. Gurcharandas Chadha, [1980) 1 
SCC 250 and R. Sara/av. TS Velu, [2000) 4 SCC 459, relied on. 
F 
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2000) 10 
JT61. 
re Muddamma Malla Reddy, (1954) CRI. L.J. 167, 3pproved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 874 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.98 of the Gauhati High Court 
G in W.A. No. 635of1997. 
Nikhil Sakhardande, S.R. Grover and Ms. Meenakshi Sakhardande for 
the Appellant. 
Ranjan Mukherjee for the State, Anil Shrivastav for the Respondent 
H Nos. 4-5. 
NA VIN CHANDRA v. ST ATE OF MEGHALA YA [THOMAS, J .] . 727 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
THOMAS, J. The police inaction to carry on with the investigation in 
a particular criminal case was attributed to financial crunch of the State and 
the High Court directed the complainant to supply funds to the police t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.