LexNIRMAL SINGH KAHLON versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1049 NIRMAL SINGH KAHLON A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. (Civi·I Appeal Nos. 6198-6199 of 2008 etc.) OCTOBER 22, 2008 B [S.8. SINHA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] '-f Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Police Act, 1861: ss. 36 and 173 (8)/s.3 - Writ petition challenging selec- tion of Panchayat Secretaries - Direction by High Court to c. hold investigation - Pursuant to investigation by State lnves- tigating Agency, FIR lodged and consequently charge-sheet filed - Further, High Court opining either to entrust investiga- tion to CBI to make further investigation by removing the per- sons against whom a/legations made, from their respective D ~ offices - State entrusting the investigation to CBI FIR lodged by CBI - Challenge to entrustment of investigation to CBI dis- missed ..by High Court - On appeal, held: Investigation was rightly entrusted to CBI- State as well as High Court had power to direct investigation by CBI - Lodging of second FIR was E not impermissible in ~aw - The first and the second Fl Rs were different in character - Since the charge sheet filed on the basis of first FIR and evidence of some witnesses recorded, direction to trial Judge to segregate the portion of trial which has any bearing with the scam related to second FIR by CBI - F t CBI Manual - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and ' 142 - Public Interest Litigation. ; I s. 36 rlw s. 3 of Police Act ands. 173 (8) - Distinction between. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Jurisdiction G under - Nature of Public Interest Litigation - Powers of Court under - Dis- tinction from private interest litigation - Discussed. 1049 H -t 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R. ). I A A writ petition was filed challenging selection of 908 ~- I- candidates to the post of Panchayat Secretaries, made at I- the time when the appellant in C.A. No. 6198-99 of 2008 r was the Rural Development and Panchayat Minister in the State. High Court formed a prima facie opinion that irregu- B larities in selection process had been committed. It directed inquiry in the matter. Pursuant thereto enquiry was made by Financial Commissioner, Rural Development and ~ Panchayat Department and he opined that the whole se- y ~ lection process be set aside and recommended investiga- c tion by Vigilan_ce Department. Vigilance Department, after investigation lodged FIR on 14.6.2002 against several per- sons including the appellant-Minister for alleged commis- sion of offences u/ss. 420, 467, 468; 120B IPC and u/ss. 13 t" (1) (d) (e) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. D Charge-sheets were filed against the appellant-Minister and appellant No. 1 (Ex. Deputy Director of Rural Development and Panchayats in (C.A.No. 6200-6201 of 2008). k ( Secretary of the Department concerned recom- ··- ~ mende_d investigation of the case by the Crime Branch of E ttie State Police. In view of the same, High Court by order dated 31.10.2002 observed that the State Government had r the option either to make further investigation by remov- I ing the persons named in the report from their respective I- t offices or to direct CBI probe. State opted to handover • F the investigation to CBI. Pursuant to direction of High ~ Court dated 30.4.2003, State issued Notification, notify- t ~ ing handing over of the investigation to CBI. By order . I dated 7.5.2003, High Court observed that in the interest of justice, investigation by CBI was fit. CBI filed its FIR on 26.6.2003. I G Appellants filed applications seeking recalling of or- I- ders of High Court dated 30.4.2003 and 7.5.2003 and for- ~- .._ ' ~ quashing the Notification and the consequential FIR dated 26.6.2003. The applications were dismissed by High H Court. Hence the present appeals. r ~ i -; NIRMAL SINGH KAHLON v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1051 & ORS. Appellants contended interalia that High Court had A no jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution to direct fresh investigation by CBI, after filing of the chargesheet in the matter; thats. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. does not envisage any in- vestigation by a Central agency after filing of chargesheet; that s. 36 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the B present case as the expression 'superior police Officer' would mean an officer superior in the same hierarchy i.e. the State Police and not an officer of CBI; and that sec- ' ond FIR by CBI was impermissible as an FIR had already been lodged by the V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.