9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statements of various officers were recorded. However, the investigating officer was of the opinion that it was not necessary to register a First Information Report. It recommended for holding of departmental proceedings against the concerned officers. The said recommendation found favour with the higher officers. The opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission was also obtained. 4. It is stated that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said recommendation, the Railway Administration initiated departmental proceedings against the concerned officers, namely, S/Shri Shyam Sunder, U.J. Dave, R.T. Pali and Ganga Prasad Sahu and imposed different penalties on them. The Railway Board thereafter by letters dated 06.12.2005 and 22.02.2006 advised the Central Vigilance Commission as regards imposition of penalties upon the said officers and closure of cases against them. Appellant, however, in the meanwhile, was transferred by an order dated 20.05.2005. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that the said order of transfer was mala fide and being an outcome of his complaint and statements made in the inquiry conducted by the first respondent. By an order dated 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. 6. Mr. S.S. Voditel, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, would contend that even in a case where the Investigating Officer may exercise his option of closing a case, it would be obligatory on his part to comply with the provisions of Section 157(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). In support of the said contention, our attention has been drawn to some decisions of this Court as also a decision of the Kerala High Court in Velayudhan v. State of Kerala 1998 (1) Crimes 510. Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of Respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the first respondent having been constituted in terms of the Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, 'the said Act') and the Central Government having laid down the procedures for conducting investigation including the mode and manner in which the preliminary inquiry should be conducted, (known as CBI Manual), which received the approval of this Court in Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. 1998CriLJ1208 , the impugned judgment of the High Court should not be interfered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sk and a mala fide conduct should be kept in mind with view to ensure that while corrupt public servants are suitably dealt with the bona fide business/commercial decisions taken by public servants in discharge of their duties are not taken up for unnecessary probe. Paragraph 9.7 reads as under: As soon as it is decided to register a PE, the SP will take action to get the PE Registration Report prepared, which will invariably be vetted by him and in case of important enquiries even drafted by him. Registration Report of PE should be written in the PE Registration Report Form and not on the form prescribed for recording First Information Report under Section 154 Cr. PC. Beside the allegations in brief, the complete details of the suspects involved should be recorded in the PE Registration Report. In respect of the public servants found involved in the matter, their Group, the Service (IAS, IRS, IPS etc.), present designation, scale of pay, present pay and date of superannuation (if available) should also be mentioned in the PE. registration report. The copies of the PE Registration Reports should be sent to the authorities mentioned in the Annexure 9-A to this chapter. Paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Nanumuri Anandayya a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that an informal enquiry on the basis of a vague telegram was not an investigation within the meaning of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In In re Rangarujulu, Ramaswami, J. of the Madras High Court described the following three stages a policeman has to pass in a conspiracy case: ...hears something of interest affecting the public security and which puts him on the alert; makes discreet enquiries, takes soundings and sets up informants and is in the second stage of qui vive or lookout; and finally gathers sufficient information enabling him to bite upon something definite and that is the stage when first information is recorded and when investigation starts. This graphic description of the stages is only a restatement of the principle that a vague information or an irresponsible rumour would not in itself constitute information within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code or the basis for an investigation under Section 157 thereof. In State of Kerala v. M.J. Samuel a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court ruled that, it can be stated as a general principle that it is not every piece of information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general .... The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable. 78. Mudholkar, J. in a separate judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi at p. 86 while agreeing with the conclusion of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) has expressed his opinion stating: (SCR pp. 86-87) In the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I am of opinion that it is open to a police officer to make preliminary enquiries before registering an offence and making a full scale investigation into it. Thus, registration of a case is a sine qua non for starting investigation [See Mohindro v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2001CriLJ2587 ]. 13. Only an anonymous complaint was made in June 2004. Evidently it was within the province of the first respondent to commence a preliminar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a statutory authority. It has a statutory duty to carry out investigation in accordance with law. Ordinarily, 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. No such case has been made out by the appellant herein. The nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition also is beyond the domain of a writ court save and except, as indicated hereinbefore, an exceptional case is made out. Appellant, inter alia, questioned his order of transfer. He moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. His Original Application was dismissed. He in the writ petition filed before the High Court, inter alia, questioned the order of Tribunal. However, now it appears that he has filed another writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, being Writ Petition No. 2036 of 2006, wherein notice has been directed to be issued and status quo has been directed to be maintained by a Division Bench of the said court by an order dated 03.05.2006. The High Court is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
