S.P. VELUMANI versus ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1067 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1067
   [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1067
1067
S.P. VELUMANI
v.
ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Investigation: Preliminary enquiry report of Superintendent
of Police – Non-disclosure of – On facts, in a corruption case
against the appellant-Cabinet Minister, the High Court ordered
a preliminary enquiry by a Superintendent of Police, Directorate
of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and who in turn submitted a
final report – High Court obtained the report, however, without
furnishing a copy thereof to the appellant, unceremoniously
closed the writ petition – Held: When the State has not pleaded
any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized
in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason
for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained
shrouded in a sealed cover – It was the High Court which had
ordered that a preliminary enquiry be conducted and a report be
submitted by the special investigating officer – However, once
the enquiry was completed, the High Court failed to even peruse
the said report – Rather, the High Court left the decision
completely in the hands of the State Government – Such an
approach, cannot be countenanced in law– When the State
Government changed its stand that now they intended to conduct
further investigation in the matter, the High Court neither
provided the appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor
sought a reasoned justification from the State for having turned
turtle – Principles of natural justice demanded that the appellant
be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based on the
material that had exonerated him initially, which was originally
accepted by the State – Thus, the High Court directed to supply
a copy of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police
along with the other documents to the appellant and the Writ
Petition are restored on the file of the High Court – Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 13(2) ,13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) –
Penal Code – ss. 109, 120, 409 and 420 –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has committed a patent error
in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion. Without
considering the material before it, and by merely relying on
the submissions made by the State, the High Court made
sweeping observations which are prejudicial to the appellant.
It was the High Court which had ordered that a preliminary
enquiry be conducted and a report be submitted by the special
investigating officer. However, once the enquiry was
completed, the High Court failed to even peruse the said
report. Rather, the High Court left the decision completely in
the hands of the State Government. Such an approach, as
adopted by the High Court cannot be countenanced in law.
[Para 20][1075-F-G]
1.2. It is a settled principle that the State cannot blow
hot and cold at the same time. When the State Government
changed its stand, the High Court neither provided the
appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a
reasoned justification from the State for having turned turtle.
Although the High Court directed the appellant to file a counter
affidavit in the writ proceedings, the State hastened to register
the said FIR on 09.08.2021. [Para 21][1075-H; 1076-A-B]
1.3. The initial affidavit filed by the State was categorical
that they did not intend to pursue action against the appellant.
However the subsequent change of stand by the State clearly
contradicts the expectation brought about by the initial
affidavit. The principles of natural justice demanded that the
appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based
on the material that had exonerated him initially, which was
originally accepted by the State. [Para 22][1076-B-C]
1.4. The State has contended that the accused would be
entitled to access the report only after the Magistrate takes
cognizance in terms of Section 207 of the CrPC and any
production of the documents beyond the ambit of aforesaid
section, is untenable in law. The contention of the State may
be appropriate under normal circumstances wherein the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1069
accused is entitled to all the documents relied upon by the
prosecution after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of
Section 207 of CrPC. It is held that the mandate of Section
207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to
cau

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