Author:
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 12, 2011
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/oped/5869-supreme-court-verdict-is-triumph-of-law.html
'Deferentially concurring with the dictum
of this Court, 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.'
Document
The following is the operative portion of
the Supreme Court's judgement of September 12, 2011:
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 cognisance of the offence alleged. As observed by a three-Judge Bench
of this Court in MC Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) Vs Union of India & Ors,
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.
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 cognisance 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 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 June 8, 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. 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 cognisance 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.
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
Kumar Modi & Ors, wherein, relying on the decision in Vineet Narain &
Ors Vs Union of India & Anr, 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."
In MC Mehta Vs Union of India & Ors, 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 (DK Jain, J) was a member, observed thus:
"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 subsection (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."
Recently, similar views have been echoed by
this Court in Narmada Bai Vs State of Gujarat & Ors. In that case, dealing
with the question of further monitoring in a case upon submission of a report
by the CBI to this Court, on the conclusion of the investigation, referring
to the earlier decisions in Vineet Narain (supra), Sushil Kumar Modi (supra)
and MC Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) (supra), speaking for the Bench, one of us,
(P Sathasivam, J) has observed as under:
"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."
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.
