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

PETITIONER: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONAND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJESH GANDHI AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/10/1996

BENCH: SUJATA V.MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      Mrs.Sujata V. Manohar.J.      leave granted.      Respondent No.l  is  a  Director  of  M/s.  Continental Transport and  Construction Corporation Limited. Some of the other directors of the company are one Ramesh Gandhi and one Mahesh  Gandhi.  The  first  respondent  and  the  said  two directors are  brothers. In  or about  February, 1993 a raid was conducted  by the  Income Tax Department, Dhanbad on the office,  residence   and  the   factory  Premises   of  M/s. Continental Transport  and Construction  Corporation Limited and the  first respondent  as well as the other directors of the said  company. Certain  documents were seized during the raids. The  documents so  seized were  stored  by  the  then Assistant Director  (Investigation),  Department  of  Income Tax, Dhanbad  in one  of the  steel  almirahs  kept  in  his chamber.  During  the  night  of  8th/9th  March,  1993  the documents seized were burnt after breaking open the office’s steel almirah  in which  documents were  kept. In respect of this incident local police registered an FIR bearing No.159 dated  9.3.1993 in  Police Station,  Dhanbad, Dhansar under Sections  457, 436,  427, 201  and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code  and under  Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the  Public Properties Act, 1984 against, inter alia, the first respondent  and other  persons. The  investigation was carried on by the local police.      Thereafter, at  the request and with the consent of the State of  Bihar as  per notification  dated  2  6.7994,  the Central   Government   by   its   notification/order   dated 26.10.1994 issued  under Section  6  of  the  Delhi  Special Police  Establishment   Act,  1946   authorised  the   first appellant, Central  Bureau of  Investigation, to investigate the said  offences. Hence  the  investigation  Of  the  said offences was  transferred to the first appellant and a fresh case RC.1(S)/95(D)  was registered  on 3.1.1995  against the first respondent and other accused persons incorporating the offences mentioned  in FIR  No.159/93. The  first respondent filed a  writ petition  in the  Patna High Court challenging the said  notifications  of  2.6.1994  and  26.10.1994.  The present appeal  arises from  an order  of a  learned  Single

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

Judge  of   the  Patna   High  Court   quashing   the   said notifications.      This is, however not the first such proceeding. Earlier respondent No.1  herein and  other accused  persons filed  a writ petition  on or  about 7.2.1995  in the  High Court  of Calcutta in  respect of  the same  criminal proceedings. The Calcutta High  Court by its order dated 9.2.1995 disposed of the writ  petition  by  directing  that  the  venue  of  the investigation be  shifted from  Dhanbad to  Ranchi  and  the investigating officers  be changed. This order, however, was set aside by this Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1155 of 1995.      Thereafter, M/s. Continental Transport and Construction Corporation Limited  and one of the director, Ramesh Gandhi, the brother of respondent No.l, filed a writ petition before the Ranchi  Bench of  the Patna  High Court  praying,  inter alia, for a writ quashing the FIR dated 3rd of January, 1995 lodged in  the court  of the  Special  Judicial  Magistrate, C.B.I. cases,  Dhanbad and for quashing the notifications of 2.6.1994 and 26.10.1994. The Ranchi Bench of the Patna  High Court, however,  dismissed the  writ petition  by a reasoned judgment and order dated 10.5.1995.      The first  respondent than filed a writ petition before the Patna  High Court  for identical reliefs of quashing the said notifications.  The Patna  High Court  allowed the writ petition  holding   that  the  impugned  notifications  must disclose reasons  as to  why  the  investigation  was  being entrusted to  the Delhi  Special Police  Establishment. This decision is under challenge before us.      In the  first place,  the same  two notifications  were challenged before the Ranchi Bench of the same High Court. A learned Single  Judge of  the High Court by a reasoned order declined  to   quash  the  two  notifications.  We  fail  to appreciate how another learned Single Judge of the same High Court has quashed the same notifications in disregard of the earlier judgment.  Secondly, there is a clear attempt on the part of  first respondent  as well as other accused to stall investigation by  the  C.B.I.,  looking  to  the  course  of conduct adopted  by them  starting with the filing of a writ petition  in  the  Calcuctta  High  Court  when  C.B.I.  had registered an  F.I.R. before the Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I. Cases, at Dhanbad.      There is  no merit  in the  pleas raised  by the  first respondent  either.  The  decision  to  investigate  or  the decision on  the agency  which should  investigate, does not attract principles  of natural  justice. The  accused cannot have a  say in  who should  investigate the  offences he  is charged with.  We also  fail to see any provision of law for recording reasons  for such  a  decision.  The  notification dated 2.6.1994 is issued b y the Government of Bihar (Police Department) by  which in  exercise of powers under Section 6 of  the   Delhi  Special  Police  Establishment  Act,  1946, Governor of  Bihar was  pleased to  consent and  extend  the powers and  Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment  to the  whole of the State of Bihar in connection  with   investigation  of  the  concerned  Police Station, on  case No.159  of 9.3.1993  in  the  District  of Dhanbad, under Sections 457, 436, 427, 201 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code  and conspiracy  arising out  of the same and any other  offence   committed  in   course  of  the  same.  The notification of  26.10.1994 is  issued by  the Government of India, Ministry  of Personnel  in  exercise  of  the  powers conferred by  sub-section (l) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of  the  Delhi  Special  Police  Establishment  Act,  1946 whereby the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of  Bihar in  their notification  dated  2.6.1994

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

extended the  powers and  jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar  for investigation  of offences  under Section 457, 436,  427/120-8   and  201  I.P.C.  and  Section  4  of  the Prevention  Of   Damages  to   Public  Property   Act,  1984 registered at  Dhanbad Police  Station,  Dhansar,  Bihar  in their case  No.159 dated  9.3.1933 and  any other  offences, attempts, abetment  and conspiracy  in  relation  to  or  in connection with  the said offence committed in the course of the same  transactions or  arising out  of the  same fact or facts in relation to the said case. There is no provision in law under  which, while  granting consent  or extending  the powers  and   jurisdiction  of   the  Delhi  Special  Police Establishment to  the specified  State and  to any specified case any  reasons are required to be recorded on the face of the notification. The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court was  clearly in  error in holding so. If investigation by  the   local  police   is  not  satisfactory,  a  further investigation is  not precluded.  In the  present  case  the material on record shows that the investigation by the local police had  not satisfactory.  In fact  the local police had filed a  final report  before the  Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhanbad. The  report, however,  was pending and had not been accepted when the Central Government with the consent of the State Government  issued the  impugned  notification.  As  a result. the  C.B.I. has been directed to further investigate the offences  registered under  the  said  F.I.R.  with  the consent of  the State Government and in accordance with law. Under Section  173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 also, there is an analogous provision  for further investigation in respect of an offence  after a  report under  sub-section (2)  has been forwarded to the Magistrate.      We fail  to see  any requirement of law under which the reasons for further investigation by the C.B.I. are required to be recorded in the notifications of the kind in question. The reasons can be shown independently.      The appeal  is, therefore,  allowed  and  the  impugned judgment and  order of  the Single  Judge of  the Patna High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.