SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 13-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 498 
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No.135 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 13, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 32 - Entrustment of 
c investigation to SIT - FIR by KD u/ss. 189, 193, 195, 341 
and 342 /PC against the petitioner-/ PS officer that he made 
false averments and filed false affidavit - Registration of/-
CR on basis thereof- FIR also lodged by then AAG of the 
State of Gujarat uls. 66 of the Information Technology Act 
D regarding hacking of his e-mail account and tampering of 
the same by the petitioner- Registration of II-CR on the basis 
thereof - Writ petitions by petitioner seeking transfer of 
investigation to CBI or SIT(Special Investigation Team) 
outside control of CM of Gujarat -Allegations by petitioner 
·E 
as to involvement of the then Chief Minister of the State of 
Gujarat in riots of 2002; that he was present in the meeting 
convened by the Chief Minister on the night of 27.02.2002 
. and the FIR was a counter blast to the action taken by the 
petitioner; and that a complaint filed by JJ in 2006, pertaining 
F to 2002 riots was ordered to be looked into by SIT by this 
Court- Held: Petitioner did not come to this Court with clean 
hands-He kept quite for a period of9 years as to the factum 
of meeting dated 27. 02. 2002 - No case made out for 
G investigation by SIT relating to preparation of affidavit or 
hacking of e-mail account and tampering with it -Allegation 
that the SIT had been leaking very sensitive and confidential 
details pertaining to the ongoing investigation to the then AAG 
of Gujarat, totally false and baseless-A/so no case is made 
H out of criminal conspiracy - It does not appear that the e-
498 
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT v. UNION OF INDIA 
499 
mail exchange between the then AAG and oiher functionaries A 
tantamounts to causing prejudice or amounts to substantial. 
interference in any other manner in due course of justice -
Further, not a case of scandalizing the court or in any manner 
affecting fair decision of the court or tending to bring the court 
into disrepute or disrespect which tantamount to criminal . B 
contempt- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(c)(iil). 
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The petitioner has not come to this Court c 
with clean hands. The petitioner kept quiet for a period 
of 9 years as to the factum of the meeting. Then he was 
exchanging e-mails for ascertaining the time and 
presence of the persons at Ahmedabad. In case he was 
present in the meeting it was not required .of him to o 
ascertain those facts. Petitioner did not state fact of the 
meeting in statement recorded by SIT in 2009. The 
explanation offered by the petitioner for said omission 
that his statement was recorded in the year 2011 before 
SIT under section 161 Cr.P.C. as such he made all E 
disclosures. The SIT was same, having same powers all 
the time. Petitioner is a senior IPS officer thus, the 
explanation of the petitioner does not appear to be prima 
facie credible. [Para 45) [540-H; 541-A-C) 
1.2 As per averments made by the petitioner, he 
accessed the e-mails of the then AAG in the years 2009 
and 2010. In case these e-mails were in his possession, 
it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to disclose them 
F 
at t~e relevant time in appropriate proceedings at an G 
appropriate stage but he did not do so. Apart from that 
when the petitioner's statement was recorded by SIT in 
March, 2011, it was his bounden duty to hand over e-
. mails to the SIT and it was also incumbent upon him to 
mention the same in the unsolicited affidavit dated . H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 14.4.2011 which he had filed in Jakia Jafri's case but he 
kept silent as to the e-mails in the said affidavit. When he 
made such sensational disclosures after 9 years, what 
prevented him from not disclosing the e-mails and 
keeping quiet is inexplicable conduct. In the statement 
B before Justice Nanavati Commission also petitioner 
failed to state about the e-mails. When he has sent thee-
mails to the effect that his potential was not fully exploited 
by rival political party, what prevented him from stating 
about the e-mails before Justice Nanavati Commission 
C also is not understandable. The counsel for tile petitioner 
in response to the query made by the court why the 
petitioner kept quiet as to e-mails on said occasions, 
fairly and rightly concede

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