LexSHASHIKANT versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·A SHASHIKANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. NOVEMBER 7, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 1946; Section 2-Anonymous complaint alleging corruption on the part of C some public servants, employees of Union of India-Scope and extent of enquiry by CBI-Held, CBI manual has to be followed. The question involved in the instant appeal was whether it was obligatory on the part of the Central Bureau of Investigation to lodge First Information D Report and carry out a full-fledged investigation about the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in each and every anonymous complaint. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Delhi Special Police Esta,blishment Act, 1946, indisputably E applies in regard to charges of corruption made against the employees of Union oflndia. (478-B, F] Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., (1998] 1 SCC 226, referred to. 1.2. Registration of a case is a sine qua non for starting investigation. F (483-A) Mohindro v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 581, relied upon. State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, this Court referred to P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc. ( 1970] 1 SCC 595 and The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, (1964) 3 SCR G 71, referred to. 1.3. That since only an anonymous complaint was made it was evidently within the province of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to commence a preliminary inquiry. The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual and in particular when it was required to inquire into the allegation of the corruption II 474 SHASHIKANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.]475 on the part of some public servants, recourse to the provisions of the Manual A cannot be said to be unfair. (483-B] 1.4. That when a preliminary inquiry was conducted on the basis of an anonymous complaint without registering a First Information Report, neither it was necessary to comply with the provision of the proviso (b) appended to subsection (1) of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor having B regard to the fact that the identity of Appellant was being unknown, the, question of complying with the said provisions, even if it be held that the same was applicable, did not arise. [483-El The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, (1964] 3 SCR C 71, referred to. Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., [2001) 7 SCC 536 a.nd Velayudhan v. State of Kera/a, (19981 1 Crimes 510, distinguished. 2.1. When a statutory authority has a statutory duty to carry out D inveStigation in accordance with law, it is not within the province of the court to direct the investigative agency to carry out investigation in a particular manner. A writ court ordinarily again would not interfere with the functioning of an investigative agency. Only in exceptional cases, it may do so. (484-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2006. From the Judgment and final Order dated 12.9.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No. E 58812005. F Sudir Voditel (for A.K. Sanghi) for the Appellant. Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Abha R. Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Vimla Sinha and D.S. Mahra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Cou~ was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. G This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.09.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A Judicature at Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.558 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Appellant herein was dismissed. Appellant claims himself to be a vigilant employee. He made an anonymous complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging corrupt B practices and financial irregularities on the part of some officers of his department. First respondent No. I stated that on the basis of a source infonnation, a preliminary inquiry was conducted in which the statements of various officers were recorded. However, the investigating officer was of the opinion that it was not necessary to register a First Infonnation Report. It C recommended for holding of departmental proceedings against the concerned officers. The said recommendation found favour with the higher officers. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.