UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus S. PAPAIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 11-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
v. 
S. PAPAIAH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 173-Union Public Service 
Commission-Conducted examination-Unfair means in the Examination-
C Investigation by CBI-Final report submitted to Magistrate-No notice to 
appellant to file objections on report-Final report accepted by Magistrate-
Request for reinvestigation rejected-Revision petition dismissed by Add. 
Sessions Judge-Held, issuance of notice by the Magistrate before accepting 
final report is a ''must' '-The Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the revision 
petition-Matter remitted to Metropolitan Magistrate-Directions to CBI to 
D further Investigate the case expeditiously to be issued by the Metropolitan 
Magistrate. 
The appellant-Union Public Service Commission conducted Indian 
Forest Service Examination, in which Respondent No. I, a candidate, used 
unfair ml'an~. The appellant requested the Central Bureau of Investigation to 
E investigate the case snd a regular case was registered. The CBI filed a final 
report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the 
Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate did not accept the 
report as copy of notice issued to the appellant was not filed alongwith the 
final report. The Magistrate directed the CBI to issue notice to appellant 
F stating that the appellant may file objections to the final report. But the CBI 
did not comply with the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate. 
Appellant wrote to the CBI pointing out that the investigation was not 
properly carried out and requested for reinvestigation of the case. This letter 
was in the nature ofa "protest petition". In the meantime, the CBI resubmitted 
the report which was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the case 
G was closed. The petition filed by the appellant before the Metropolitan 
Magistrate for reinvestigation of the case was rejected. The Revision Petition 
before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge was also dismissed. Hence 
the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the omission to issue notice to 
H 
56 
U.P.S.C. v. S. PAPAIAH 
57 
the appellant before accepting the .final report and closing the case vitiates A 
the order of the Court accepting the final report. It was also contended that 
the observations of the Sessions Judge that notice had been issued to the 
appellant as <!irected by the lower court and inspite of that notice, the appellant 
had not filed any objections was clearly erroneous and against the record. 
Allowing the appea~ this Court 
HELD : 1. No notice was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the 
appellant before accepting the final report submitted by the CBI and deciding 
B 
not to take cognizance and drop the procf,edings. This omission vitiates the 
order of the court accepting the final rep.ort. The issue is no longer res C 
integra. As per the law laid in Bhagwant Singh's case* the issuance of a 
notice by the Magistrate to the informant at the time of consideration of the 
final report is a "must". This binding precedent, which is the law of the land, 
has not been followed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and was wrongly ignored 
by the revisional Court also. [63-C-D; 64-B-C], 
* Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr., (1985] 2 SCC 
537, relied on. 
1.2. The issuance of notice by the CBI to the appellant was not a 
substitute for the notice which was required to be given by the Magistrate. 
D 
The CBI also did not issue any fresh notice to appellant before it resubmitted E 
the final report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate could not in any event 
"delegate" to the investigating agency its function of issuing notice. Moreover, · 
when law requires a particul.ar thing to be_ done in a particular manner, h 
must be done in that manner. [64-D-E] 
2. The CBI did not bring to the notice of the Metropolitan Magistrate F 
while submitting final report that the appellant had pointed out certain defects 
in the investigation and has demanded reinvestigation. It was improper on the 
part of the investigating officer of the CBI to have withheld a vital document 
which was in the nature ofa "protest petition". The withholding of vital 
information has created· a doubt about the fairness on the .part of the G 
investigating officer. Had the contents of the communication been brought to 
the notice of the Magistrate, he might not have 

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