http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ANUKUL CHANDRA PRADHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/10/1996

BENCH: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The nature  of this  proceeding is  similar to  that of W.P. (Crl.)  Nos. 340-343 of 1993 - Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of  India &  Ors. It  was made clear at the outset and reiterated from  time to  time in  this  proceeding  to  the Revenue  Secretary,   Director  of   C.B.I.  and  the  other Government officials  that the  orders  made  in  W.P.(Crl.) Nos.340-343 of 1993 regarding the mode of functioning of all the officials  equally apply  in the present case also. This is how,  we  have  been  assured  by  the  learned  Attorney General, is  the mode of functioning of all the officials in the present  case also.  It is  needless to  say  that  this manner of functioning by them has to continue.      For ready  reference, an extract from one such order of particular significance  is quoted  herein for emphasis. The order is  dated 30-01-1996,  reported in,  1996 (2) SCC 199, wherein it was said:           "3.The facts and circumstances      of the  present  case  do  indicate      that  it   is  of   utmost   public      importance  that   this  matter  is      examined thoroughly  by this  Court      to  ensure   that  all   government      agencies, entrusted  with the  duty      to discharge  their  functions  and      obligations in accordance with law,      do so,  bearing in  mind constantly      the concept  of equality  enshrined      in the  Constitution and  the basic      tenet of  rule of law: "Be you ever      so high,  the law  is  above  you."      Investigation into every accusation      made against  each and every person      on a reasonable basis, irrespective      of the  position and status of that      person,  must   be  conducted   and      completed  expeditiously.  This  is      imperative   to    retain    public      confidence in the impartial working      of the government agencies.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    4.   In this  proceeding we are not      concerned with  the merits  of  the      accusations  or   the   individuals      alleged to  be involved,  but  only      with the  performance of  the legal      duty by  the government agencies to      fairly,    properly    and    fully      investigate   into    every    such      accusation  against  every  person,      and  to   take  the  logical  final      action in accordance with law.      5.   In  case  of  persons  against      whom a prima facie case is made out      and a  charge-sheet is filed in the      competent court,  it is  that court      which will then deal with that case      on merits,  in accordance with law.      (Paras 3,4,5).      In accordance  with the  directions so  given,  it  has been reported  to us  that chargesheets  have been  filed by the C.B.I.  in two  cases and  the Delhi  Police in one case which they were investigating These cases are :      1) St Kitts’ Forgery Case      (Chargesheet filed by C.B.I. )      2)Lakhubhai Pathak Cheating Case.      (Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)      3)Rajendra Jain case.      (Chargesheet filed by Delhi      Police.)      In view  of the  fact that  chargesheet has  been filed under Section  173 Criminal  Procedure Code  in each  of the above three  cases in  the competent court, it is that court which is  now to deal with the case on merits, in accordance with law.  Any direction  considered necessary  for  further investigation, if  any, or  to  proceed  against  any  other person who  also appears  to have  committed any  offence in that transaction,  is within  the domain  of  the  concerned court according  to the  procedure prescribed  by  law.  The purpose of  this proceeding is to command performance of the duty under  law to  properly investigate into the accusation of commission  of the crime and to file a chargesheet in the competent court,  if a  prima facie  case is  made out. This purpose has been served in the above three cases, in respect of which no further action in this proceeding is called for.      Accordingly, this  proceeding has come to an end, in so far as it relates to the above three criminal cases. For the remaining part,  it is  to  continue  till  the  and  result prescribed by  law is achieved. The concerned court in which the chargesheet  has been  filed has  to proceed entirely in accordance with  law without  the slightest  impression that there is  any parallel  proceeding in  respect of  the  same matter pending in this court.      We may  also observe,  that the concerned court dealing with the  above matters  has to  bear in  mind  that  utmost expedition  in   the  trial  and  its  early  conclusion  is necessary for  the ends  of justice  and credibility  of the judicial process.  Unless prevented  by any dilatory tactics of the accused, all trials of this kind involving public men should be  concluded most  expeditiously, preferably  within three months  of commencement of the trial. This is also the requirement of speedy trial read into Article 21.      A note  of caution  may  be  appropriate.  No  occasion should arise  for an impression that the publicity attaching to these  matters has  tended to  dilute the emphasis on the essentials of  a fair  trial and  the  basic  principles  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

jurisprudence including  the presumption of innocence of the accused unless  found guilty  at the  end of the trial. This requirement, undoubtedly  has to  be kept in view during the entire trial. It is reiterated, that any observation made by this Court  for the  purpose of the proceedings pending here has no  bearing on  the merits of the accusation, and is not to influence  the trial  in any manner Care must be taken to ensure that  the credibility  of the judicial process is not undermined in any manner.      This proceeding  is  to  continue  in  respect  of  the remaining matters only which are incomplete.      A copy  of this order be sent to the concerned court in each of the above three cases.