2015 (8) TMI 1449 - SC - Indian Laws

Personal and official bias - the allegation against the petitioners and others is that they along with other people unauthorizedly entered into the railway station squatted on the tracks causing detention for 15 minutes by shouting slogans in support of their demands such as to repair the railway route as announced in the Budget and non plying of trains between Nagercoil and Coimbatore - whether there would occur a real likelihood or reasonable suspicion of it when an officer who registers the case proceed to investigate the case? Held that - Section 145 of Railways Act 1989 deals with nuisance for which punishment of a fine of Rs. 100/- has been prescribed. Section 147 deals with trespass which prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine of Rs. 1, 000/- or both has been prescribed. As per the proviso there shall not be any punishment less than Rs. 500/- except for special and adequate reasons - Similarly Section 174 deals with the obstructing the running of a train for the said offence. For the said offence a maximum punishment of 2 years has been prescribed. Under Section 179 of the Railways Act 1989 for the offences as mentioned above an authorised officer can arrest a person concerned even without warrant. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is an element of bias this Court on facts does not find the submission warranting acceptance. Admittedly the respondent who gave the complaint is the authorised officer who did the investigation. He merely received the statements from the officials and filed the complaint. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence alleged. The earlier complaint was closed only for the offence under Section 151 Cr.P.C. Therefore this court does not find any double jeopardy or bias more so when the power is available to the respondent to initiate action. However this Court finds considerable force in the other submission made. The authorised officer merely recorded the statement of few railway officials. What was required was an inquiry into the alleged offence. The said inquiry is for the purpose of the authorised officer being satisfied that an offence has been committed. Admittedly neither the petitioners nor the other accused have been called for inquiry. Such a power is very much available to the respondent including the power of arrest under Section 180 and further inquiry under Section 180-B of the Act. Unfortunately no such attempt has been made. This Court is of the view that in the interest of justice the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 Nagercoil is required to be quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bias
2. Fairness and Rule of Law
3. Defective Investigation
4. Investigator's Bias
5. Procedure qua a cognizable offence
6. Precedents
7. Case on hand

Detailed Analysis:

Bias:
Bias is a condition impairing impartiality in decision-making processes, which can arise in administrative, executive, quasi-judicial, or judicial contexts due to pre-determination or pre-disposition. Bias can be pecuniary, personal, or official, with the latter two being the primary concerns in this case. Courts have developed principles such as the "real likelihood of bias test" and the "reasonable suspicion test" to determine bias from the perspective of a fair-minded informed observer or a reasonable common mind. The court's role is to ascertain the likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias rather than actual bias, which is difficult to establish.

Fairness and Rule of Law:
The state and its officials must conform to the Rule of Law, ensuring fairness in action, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Fair investigation is a constitutional and natural right, applicable to both the accused and the victim. The Supreme Court has consistently held that fairness in criminal investigations and trials is mandatory under Articles 14, 21, and 39-A of the Constitution.

Defective Investigation:
A defective investigation does not automatically exonerate an accused. The court's role is to find the truth, and a defective investigation on technical grounds alone cannot lead to acquittal. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the journey of every trial is towards uncovering the truth.

Investigator's Bias:
The investigator plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system. Bias attributed to an investigator can lead to deception and injustice. The investigator must conduct the investigation fairly, avoiding any suspicion of ulterior motives. The Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of an impartial and genuine investigation to bring out the truth.

Procedure qua a cognizable offence:
An FIR sets the criminal law into motion and enables the officer in charge to commence the investigation. Section 154 Cr.P.C. prescribes the mode of recording information, while Section 156 empowers the officer to investigate. An officer can initiate an investigation based on information or otherwise. The terms "informant" and "complainant" are distinct, with the former referring to the person providing information leading to the FIR and the latter to the person lodging a complaint with the Magistrate.

Precedents:
The Supreme Court has distinguished between cases where an officer who is an eyewitness to an occurrence proceeds with the investigation and cases where an officer receives information and then investigates. In the former, the concept of bias applies, while in the latter, it does not. The court has consistently held that an officer can register a case suo motu or based on information and then proceed with the investigation without attracting the concept of bias.

Case on hand:
The petitioners were accused of unauthorizedly entering a railway station, squatting on the tracks, and causing detention. A case was registered under Section 151 Cr.P.C., but further action was dropped. Subsequently, a complaint was filed under Sections 147, 145(b), and 174(a) of the Railways Act, 1989. The court found no bias in the respondent's actions, as he merely recorded statements from officials and filed the complaint without being an eyewitness. However, the court noted that the respondent failed to conduct a proper inquiry, including calling the petitioners for inquiry, and only 12 persons were accused despite evidence of 150 to 200 involved. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.198 of 2009 were quashed in the interest of justice.