LexSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. versus RANCHI ZILA SAMTA PARTY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. v. RANCHI ZILASAMTA PARTY AND ANR. MARCH 19, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 136 and 226-Seventh Schedule-- List I-Entry 80. Delhi Special Police Act, 1946 : Section 6. A B c Bihar Animal Husbandry Department-Education, Co-operation and Fisheries Department-Large scale defalcation of.public funds, fraudulent transactions and falsification of accounts-Investigation by State Police-High Court in exercise of power under A1ticle 226 directing investiga- D tion by CBI without consent of the State Govemment-Direction given not to cast a slur on the State Police but to investigate conuptio11 in public ad- ministration-Held direction given was just and proper and calls for no inteiference under Article 136-Modification of direction given by High Court stating that all persons involved in scandal be dealt with according to E law-Held that investigation by CBI should be under overall supervision of Chief Justice of Pama High Corm-Question whether High Court can direct investigation by CBI without consent of the State concerned-Not gone into as reference was already pending before a Constitution Bench. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5177 of F 1996 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.96 of the Patna High Court in C.W J.C. No. 459 of 1996-R. Soli J. Sorabjee, F.S. Nariman, P.P. Rao, Shanti Bhushan, Arun G Jaitley, O.P. Sharma, Rajiv Dhawan, Rameshwar Prasad, Sashi Anugrah, B.B. Singh, Jamshed Bey, Prashant Bhushan, Maninder Singh, Pratibha M. ~ Singh, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Rakesh Prasad, Sushi! Kumar Modi, Ms. N anita Sharma, Ranji Thomas, Prashant Chaudhary, P .K. Shahi, Pramod Kumar, Gopal Singh and Ms. Vimala Sinha for the appearing parties. H 663 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides. B These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated March 11, 1996 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 459 of 1996 and batch. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts stated in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Suffice it to state that a large-scale defalcation of public funds, fraudulent transactions and falsification of C accounts, to the tune of around Rs. 500 crores, came to light in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Bihar. This had taken place during the years 1977-78 to 1995-96. A similar situation prevailed in the Education, Cooperation and Fisheries Departments. It is agreed by all the counsel that an in-depth investigation is required to be made. The only controversy between counsel on either side is whether the High Court, in exercise of D its power under Article 226, could take the investigation away from the State police and entrust it to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, contended that, by reason of Entry 80 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Act, 1946 (Act E 26 of 1946), without the consent of the appropriate State Government no investigating agency other than the State Police could investigate an offence committed in the State. The High Court, while exercising power under Article 226, should have kept in mind this limitation. The limitation did not apply to this Court exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution p to do complete justice. The High Court, therefore, was not correct in law in directing the CBI to investigate the allegations of deflacation of public funds, large-scale misappropriation, fabrication and destruction of the record etc. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, contended that the State Government had not delayed in instituting the investigation. As soon as the matter was brought to the knowledge of the Chief Minister, he took prompt G action, suspended the erring officers and constituted an Enquiry to submit periodical reports. The State, Mr. Rao submitted, would not attempt to shield any corrupt officer from being prosecuted or proceeded with departmentally. The prompt action taken established the sincerity of the State Government to see that proper investigation was carried out. There H was no allegation against the State police. The High Court could have ·- STATEOFBIHARv. RANCHI ZILASAMTAPARTY 665 preserved
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.