LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

y this wonderful judgement, the apex court clearly differentiated what is monitoring and what is investigating



By this wonderful judgement the apex court clearly differentiated what is monitoring and what is investigating monitoring = in cases monitored by this Court, it is concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by the investigating agency and not with the merits of the accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent Court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by law.

posted 29 minutes ago by MURALI MOHAN ,MANDAGADDI   [ updated 3 minutes ago ]
monitoring = Having paused to reflect on whether your intended destination is the right one and how well you are progressing towards it, the last element required is to consider whether the way in which you are travelling is still fit for purpose. What is therefore required is a constant review of the effectiveness of the measures you have put in place to achieve your strategic objectives.

monitoring = in cases monitored by this Court, 
 it   is   concerned   with   ensuring   proper   and   honest   performance   of   its 
  duty   by   the   investigating   agency   and   not   with   the   merits   of   the 
   accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on 
  the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent Court, according to the 
  ordinary procedure prescribed by law.  


By this wonderful judgement, the apex court clearly differentiated what is monitoring and what is investigating


 The appellant lost her husband, a former Member of Parliament, in the 


   calamitous   events   which   took   place   on   28th  February,   2002,   in   the 


   surroundings   of   Gulberg   Society,   Ahmedabad,   where   the   appellant 


   resided   along   with   her   family.     An   FIR   relating   to   the   incident   was 


   registered   by   the   Police   with   Meghaninagar   Police   Station, 


   Ahmedabad. After investigation, on the filing of the charge-sheet, the 


   case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Ahmedabad. It was the 


   case  of  the  appellant  that  subsequently  she  received  certain  material 


   which  showed that  the incidents  which  took place  during  the  period 


   between                 27th  February, 2002 and 10th  May, 2002, were aided, 


   abetted     and   conspired   by   some   responsible   persons   in   power,   in 


   connivance   with   the   State   Administration,   including   the   Police.   The 


   appellant   thus   sought   registration   of   another   FIR   against   certain 


   persons   named   in   the   complaint,   dated   8th  June,   2006,   for   offences 


   punishable   under  Section   302  read   with  Section   120B  as   also  under 


   Section   193   read   with   Sections   114,   186   &   153A,   186,   187   of   the 


   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860.   However,   as   the   police   declined   to   take 


   cognizance   of   her   complaint,   the   appellant   filed   the   aforementioned 


   petition  before  the High Court.   Having failed  to convince  the High 


   Court that it was a fit case for investigation by an independent agency, 


   the appellant-complainant, supported by an NGO, is before us in this 


   appeal.




4. On   3rd  March,   2008   while   issuing   notice   to   the   Union   of   India   and 


   State of Gujarat, an Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the Court. 


   Vide order dated 27th April, 2009, the Special Investigation Team (for 


   short   "the   SIT"),   which   had   been   constituted   vide   order   dated   26th 


   March, 2008 to carry out further investigations in nine cases, subject 





                                                                                       3

.
   matter of Writ Petition No. 109 of 2003, was directed `to look into', 


   the   complaint   submitted   by   the   appellant   on   8th  June,   2006   to   the 


   Director   General   of   Police,   Gujarat.     Pursuant   to   the   said   direction 


   Shri A.K. Malhotra, former D.I.G. (C.B.I.) and one of the members of 


   the   SIT,   examined   a   number   of   witnesses   and   looked   into   a   large 


   number   of   documents   made   available   to   him.     A   report,   dated   12th 


   May,   2010,   was   submitted   to   this   Court   by   the   Chairman,   SIT, 


   concurring with the findings of Shri A.K. Malhotra. 




5. In   his   report   dated   12th  May,   2010,   Shri   A.K.   Malhotra,  inter   alia  


   recommended further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code 


   against   certain   Police   officials   and   a   Minister   in   the   State   Cabinet. 


   Consequently, further investigation was conducted and a report dated 


   17th  November, 2010, was submitted by the SIT.   On 23rd  November, 


   2010,   Shri   Raju   Ramachandran,   Senior   Advocate   and   Shri   Gaurav 


   Agarwal,   Advocate,   replaced   the   previous   Amicus   Curiae,   who   had 


   expressed his unwillingness to continue. 




6. On 20th January, 2011, a preliminary note was submitted by Shri Raju 


   Ramachandran, the learned Amicus Curiae; whereon, vide order dated 


   15th  March,   2011,   the   SIT   was   directed   to   submit   its   report,   and   if 


   necessary carry out   further investigation in light of the observations 


   made in the said note. The SIT conducted further investigation under 




                                                                                         4

.
   Section   173(8)   of   the   Code   in   Meghaninagar   Police   Station   Crime 


   Report No.67 of 2002--Gulberg Society case, and submitted a report 


   on   24th  April,   2011.     After   examining   the   said   report,   on   5th  May, 


   2011, the following order was passed :




              "Pursuant to our order dated 15th March, 2011, the 

              Chairman,   Special   Investigation   Team   (SIT)   has 

              filed report on the further investigations carried out 

              by   his   team   along   with   his   remarks   thereon. 

              Statements   of   witnesses   as   also   the   documents 

              have   been   placed   on   record   in   separate   volumes. 

              Let  a copy of all these  documents  along with the 

              report   of   the   Chairman   be   supplied   to   Mr.   Raju 

              Ramachandran, the learned Amicus Curiae.


              The   learned   Amicus   Curiae   shall   examine   the 

              report;   analyze   and   have   his   own   independent 

              assessment   of   the   statements   of   the   witnesses 

              recorded   by   the   SIT   and   submit   his   comments 

              thereon.   It   will   be   open   to   the   learned   Amicus 

              Curiae  to interact  with any of the witnesses,  who 

              have   been   examined   by   the   SIT,   including   the 

              police officers, as he may deem fit.


              If the learned Amicus Curiae forms an opinion that 

              on the basis of the material on record, any offence 

              is   made   out   against   any   person,   he   shall   mention 

              the same in his report."




7. The learned Amicus Curiae has now submitted his final report dated 


   25th July, 2011.  In light of the above conspectus and the report of the 


   learned   Amicus   Curiae,   the   question   for   determination   is   the   future 


   course of action in the matter.





                                                                                      5

.
8. We are of the opinion that bearing in mind the scheme of Chapter XII 


   of the Code, once the investigation has been conducted and completed 


   by the SIT, in terms of the orders passed by this Court from time to 


   time, there is no course available in law, save and except to forward 


   the   final   report   under   Section   173   (2)   of   the   Code   to   the   Court 


   empowered to take cognizance of the offence alleged.  As observed by 


   a   three-Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in  M.C.   Mehta   (Taj   Corridor  


   Scam)  Vs. Union of India & Ors.1, in cases monitored by this Court, 


   it   is   concerned   with   ensuring   proper   and   honest   performance   of   its 


   duty   by   the   investigating   agency   and   not   with   the   merits   of   the 


   accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on 


   the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent Court, according to the 


   ordinary procedure prescribed by law.  




9. Accordingly, we direct  the Chairman, SIT to  forward a final report, 


   along with the entire material collected by the SIT, to the Court which 


   had   taken   cognizance   of   Crime   Report   No.67   of   2002,   as   required 


   under Section 173(2) of the Code.   Before submission of its report, it 


   will be open to the SIT to obtain from the Amicus Curiae copies of his 


   reports   submitted   to   this   Court.   The   said   Court   will   deal   with   the 


   matter   in   accordance   with   law   relating   to   the   trial   of   the   accused, 


   named in the report/charge-sheet, including matters falling within the 


1 (2007) 1 SCC 110




                                                                                        6

.
   ambit   and   scope   of   Section   173(8)   of   the   Code.   However,   at   this 


   juncture,   we   deem   it   necessary   to   emphasise   that   if   for   any   stated 


   reason   the   SIT   opines   in   its   report,   to   be   submitted   in   terms   of   this 


   order,   that   there   is   no   sufficient   evidence   or   reasonable   grounds   for 


   proceeding against any person named in the complaint, dated 8th June 


   2006,     before   taking   a   final   decision   on   such   `closure'   report,   the 


   Court shall issue notice to the complainant and make available to her 


   copies of the statements of the witnesses, other related  documents and 


   the investigation report strictly in accordance with law as enunciated 


   by   this   Court   in    Bhagwant   Singh  Vs.  Commissioner   of   Police   &  


   Anr.2.    For the sake of ready reference, we may note that  in the said 


   decision, it has been held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom 


   a report is forwarded under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code, decides not 


   to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes 


   a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some 


   of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice 


   to the informant and provide  him an opportunity  to be heard   at the 


   time of consideration of the report.




10.Having   so   directed,   the   next   question   is   whether   this   Court   should 


   continue   to  monitor   the   case   any   further.    The   legal   position  on   the 


   point is made clear by this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs.  Sushil  


2 (1985) 2 SCC 537




                                                                                              7

.
   Kumar   Modi   &   Ors.3,  wherein,   relying   on   the   decision   in  Vineet  


   Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.4, a Bench of three learned 


   Judges had observed thus :




               "...that   once   a   charge-sheet   is   filed   in   the 

               competent   court   after   completion   of   the 

               investigation,   the   process   of   monitoring   by   this 

               Court for the purpose of making the CBI and other 

               investigative   agencies   concerned   perform   their 

               function   of   investigating   into   the     offences 

               concerned   comes   to   an   end;   and   thereafter   it   is 

               only   the   court   in   which   the   charge-sheet   is   filed 

               which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial 

               of the accused, including matters falling within the 

               scope   of   Section   173(8)   of   the   Code   of   Criminal 

               Procedure.     We   make   this   observation   only   to 

               reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts 

               in any quarter may survive."




11.In  M.C. Mehta  Vs.  Union of India & Ors.5,  a question arose as to 


   whether   after   the   submission   of   the   final   report   by   the   CBI   in   the 


   Court of Special Judge, pursuant to this Court's directions, this Court 


   should examine the legality and validity of CBI's action in seeking a 


   sanction under Section 197 of the Code for the prosecution of some of 


   the   persons   named   in   the   final   report.     Dismissing   the   application 


   moved by the learned Amicus Curiae seeking directions in this behalf, 


   a three-Judge Bench, of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member, 


   observed thus:



3 (1998) 8 SCC 661

4 (1996) 2 SCC 199

5 (2008) 1 SCC 407




                                                                                         8

.
 

                 "The   jurisdiction   of   the   Court   to   issue   a   writ   of 

                 continuous   mandamus   is   only   to   see   that   proper 

                 investigation   is   carried   out.   Once   the   Court 

                 satisfies itself that a proper investigation has been 

                 carried   out,  it  would  not  venture  to  take   over  the 

                 functions   of   the   Magistrate   or   pass   any   order 

                 which  would  interfere   with  his   judicial   functions. 

                 Constitutional   scheme   of   this   country   envisages 

                 dispute   resolution   mechanism   by   an   independent 

                 and   impartial   tribunal.   No   authority,   save   and 

                 except   a   superior   court   in   the   hierarchy   of 

                 judiciary, can issue any direction which otherwise 

                 takes   away   the   discretionary   jurisdiction   of   any 

                 court of law. Once a final report has been filed in 

                 terms of sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Code 

                 of   Criminal   Procedure,   it   is   the   Magistrate   and 

                 Magistrate   alone   who   can   take   appropriate 

                 decision in the matter one way or the other. If he 

                 errs while passing a judicial  order,  the same  may 

                 be   a   subject-matter   of   appeal   or   judicial   review. 

                 There   may   be   a   possibility   of   the   prosecuting 

                 agencies not approaching the higher forum against 

                 an order passed by the learned Magistrate, but the 

                 same   by   itself   would   not   confer   a   jurisdiction   on 

                 this Court to step in." 




12.Recently, similar views have been echoed by this Court in Narmada  


     Bai  Vs.  State   of   Gujarat   &   Ors.6.    In   that   case,   dealing   with   the 


     question of further monitoring in a case upon submission of a report 


     by   the   C.B.I.   to   this   Court,   on   the   conclusion   of   the   investigation, 


     referring   to   the   earlier   decisions   in  Vineet   Narain  (supra),  Sushil  


     Kumar Modi  (supra) and  M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam)  (supra), 





6 (2011) 5 SCC 79




                                                                                           9

.
   speaking for the Bench, one of us, (P. Sathasivam, J.) has observed as 


   under :




               "70. The above decisions make it clear that though 

               this Court is competent to entrust the investigation 

               to any independent agency, once the investigating 

               agency   complete   their   function   of   investigating 

               into   the   offences,   it   is   the   court   in   which   the 

               charge-sheet   is   filed   which   is   to   deal   with   all 

               matters   relating   to   the   trial   of   the   accused 

               including   matters   falling   within   the   scope   of 

               Section 173(8) of the Code.   Thus, generally, this 

               Court   may   not   require   further   monitoring   of   the 

               case/investigation.  However, we make it clear that 

               if   any   of   the   parties   including   CBI   require   any 

               further   direction,   they   are   free   to   approach   this 

               Court by way of an application."




13.  Deferentially   concurring   with   the   dictum   of   this   Court   in   the 


   aforenoted decisions, we are of the opinion that in the instant case we 


   have reached a stage where the process of monitoring of the case must 


   come to an end. It would neither be desirable nor advisable to retain 


   further seisin over this case.  We dispose of this appeal accordingly.