ROYDEN HAROLD BUTHELLO & ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 28-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 150
150
ROYDEN HAROLD BUTHELLO & ANR.
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.634 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Criminal Law – Investigation by CBI – When cannot be
directed – Appellant no.1 accused of indulging in sale of
psychotropic NDPS substance – It is the case of the appellant no.1
that while he was travelling with regard to his business, he was
illegally abducted, detained and a case under NDPS was foisted
on him – Appellant no.1 and his father-appellant no.2 filed writ
petition before High Court inter alia seeking direction to transfer
the investigation to the CBI, which was declined – Revision petition
filed by the appellant against order framing charges was also
dismissed – On appeal, held: Power to transfer the investigation is
an extraordinary power – It is to be used very sparingly and in an
exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts
and circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other
option of securing a fair trial without the intervention and
investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating
agency – In the present case, there is no issue of public importance
which requires investigation by the CBI – Contention of the appellant
that the offence alleged against him to have been committed on
21.10.2020 could not have been committed by him inasmuch as he
was abducted from a different State and was already in illegal
detention of the police on 20.10.2020, would be the defence in the
criminal trial – Other aspects contended by the appellants could be
established through evidence in trial before the competent court –
Appellants would have the further remedy of the legal course
available to them if they are dissatisfied – Thus, when the issue
raised is only a matter of evidence to be considered in the judicial
proceedings to arrive at a conclusion, a direction to the CBI to hold
an investigation would be unjustified – Impugned orders not
interfered with – NDPS Act – ss.29 r/w ss.22(b), (c), 25, 27 – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though there is no inflexible guideline or a
straightjacket formula laid down, the power to transfer the
investigation is an extraordinary power. It is to be used very
sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on
appreciating the facts and circumstance arrives at the conclusion
that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without the
intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other
specialized investigating agency which has the expertise. In that
background, there is no issue of public importance which requires
to be unearthed by an investigation to be conducted by the CBI.
Even from the facts noted and the allegations made against the
police, though the Court is sensitive to the sentiment of the
appellants herein, the contention ultimately is that the offence
alleged against him to have been committed on 21.10.2020 could
not have been committed by him inasmuch as he had been
abducted from a different State and was already in the illegal
detention of the police on 20.10.2020 itself. This essentially would
be the defence in the criminal trial. The charges have been framed
and the evidence is being tendered. Insofar as the allegation that
the said persons namely ‘PB’, ‘S’, ‘S’ and ‘A’ had gone to Odisha
and had illegally abducted him, from the very details furnished by
the appellants themselves, it is noted that the High Court had
through the order dated 17.03.2022 in a collateral proceeding
directed that the five officers stated in the said order be called as
witnesses for examination and cross-examination. [Paras 19,
20][162-F-H; 163-A-B]
1.2 In that view, even though it is contended that the CCTV
footage would be relevant to establish the presence of the said
four persons in the hotel at Odisha and the same has not been
seized by the police, the fact remains that even from the same
what is sought to be established is that the said four persons had
abducted the appellant No.1. In the course of trial the five persons
specified by the appellants would now be available to be cross-
examined and any other orders in that regard can be sought in
the pending proceedings. That apart, on the other aspects also
since the trial is under progress, the appellant No.1 would be
entitled to put forth his cas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.