UNION OF INDIA versus PRAKASH P. HINDUJA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 07-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
PRAKASH P. HINDUJA AND ANR. 
JULY 7, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Sections 482, 173, 190, 156 and 
157-0ffence under Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act-CBI filing 
charge sheet without approval of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)- C 
Cognizance of offence by Special Judge-High Court holding that filing of 
charge sheet without approval of CVC violative of directions issued by Supreme 
Court in Vineet Narain 's case empowering CVC to have superintendence over 
the working of CBI, therefore illegality in investigation-Dismissal of charge 
sheet and quashing of cognizance taken and all consequential proceedings-
On appeal held: Court cannot interfere with the investigation-Vineet Narain 's D 
case does not lay down that CBI will have to take concurrence or sanction 
from CVC before filing charge sheet in Court, thus investigation not i/legal-
Also no right conferred upon accused to approach CVC or to challenge the 
action of CBI in submission of charge sheet in Court on the ground of some 
purported irregularity in making a report to eve regarding progress of 
investigation- Hence, order of High Court set aside-Penal Code, 1860- E 
Section 120B read with section 420-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-
Section 5(2) read with section 5(/)(d)-Delhi Special Police Establishment 
Act, 1946-Section 4. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Investigation '-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(h) of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Government of India and private company of Sweden viz. Bofors 
F 
Co. entered into a contract for supply of gun systems along with vehicles, G 
ammunition and other accessories. There were allegations against the 
company that they had obtained the contract from the Government of· 
India after paying large amount of bribe. Investigations were carried out. 
Thereafter, CBI filed charge sheet under Section 120-8 read with 420 IPC 
and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption 
307 
II 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORT~ 003) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Act, 1947 against accused persons. It was mentioned that the investigations 
concerning the role of respondents and others was continuing. Special 
Judge took cognizance of the offence and registered a case. Thereafter, 
CBI submitted a supplementary charge sheet against the respondents and 
issued summons against them. Respondent No I then filed an application 
B for dismissing the charge sheets and revoking the cognizance taken and 
the process issued against the accused since the cases were never reported 
to Central Vigilance Commission(CVC) and CVC neither reviewed the 
cases nor considered them fit for continuance of the prosecution leading 
to non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Vineet Narain 's 
case empowering CVC to have superintendence over the working of CBI. 
C Special Judge dismissed the application. Respondents then filed a petition 
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for dismissing the charge sheets and revoking 
the cognizance taken and the process issued against the accused. High 
Court held that there was violation of the directions issued in Vineet 
Narain 's case as CBI had filed the charge sheet before the Special Judge 
without placing the same before CVC thus illegality had been committed 
D in the course of investigation. It allowed the petition quashing the 
cognizance taken and all the consequential proceedings. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Appellants contended that the High Court has completely 
E misunderstood the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain 's case; that it 
does not give any kind of a right to an accused to challenge the charge 
sheet on account of any alleged non-observance or violation of the 
directions issued regar.ding the functioning and responsibility of CVC; that 
the entire object is to insulate the CBI from any kind of external influence 
or pressure so that it may perform its duty as enjoined in Delhi Special 
F Police Establishment Act; and that the appellant has been taking steps to 
comply with the directions issued in Vineet Narain 's case. 
Respondents contended that as the CVC has been entrusted with the 
responsibility of superintendence over the CBI's functioning, the CVC has 
the right to give a direction to the CBI not to submit a charge-sheet against 
G the accused; and that the directions issued in Vineet Narain 's case have 
not been complied by the Union of India as the CVC has not been
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.