http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUSHIL KUMAR MODI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1997

BENCH: J.S. VERMA, K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This order  has to be read in continuation of our order dated November  5, 1996 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 14164-65 of 1996, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Modi & Ors., reported in 1996 (6) SCC 500. These appeals by special leave are against  some portions  of the orders dated November 13, 1996 and December 19, 1996 passed by the Patna High Court in the same matter - CWJC No. 1617 of 1996 with CWJC No. 602 of 1996 -  as a  sequel thereto. The material facts need not be reiterated as  they are  mentioned in  our  aforesaid  order dated November 5, 1996.      When the  matter was  taken up  in the Patna High Court subsequent to  our aforesaid  order dated  November 5, 1996, during the  further proceedings  after our  order, the  High Court has  made the  two orders  dated November 13, 1996 and December 19,  1996. The  learned Attorney General, on behalf of the  appellants, has  indicated certain portions of these two orders  and contended  that they  do not  match with our earlier  order   dated  November   5,  1996.   It  would  be appropriate at this stage to quote those portions of the two orders to  which grievance  is made  by the learned Attorney General. These are: In order dated November 13, 1996:      Portion ‘A’:      "The Supreme  Court  has  not  laid      down   the   modality   of   making      reference to  the Attorney  General      in case  of difference  of opinion.      What if  the Director does not make      the reference on his own. According      to us,  this can  be sorted  out by      asking the Director, CBI, to submit      the complete report(s) submitted by      the  Joint  Director  and/or  other      investigating officers  so that  in      the event Court finds that there is      difference   of    opinion,   which      requires resolution by the Attorney      General, the  same may  be referred

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

    to him."      Portion ‘B’:      "The  aforesaid   aspects  of   the      matter as also other aspects, which      were briefly  mentioned during  the      course of  hearing  today,  can  be      more   properly   and   effectively      discussed in  the presence  of  the      Director, CBI,  himself. He is also      to be  told about the import of the      Supreme  Court’s  orders.  We  are,      therefore, of  the opinion that the      next hearing  should take  place in      his presence." In order dated December 19, 1996: Whole of para 4, particularly the following: Portion ‘C’:      "......the present case is the only      case   of   its   kind   in   which      investigation is being monitored by      the High Court......in the interest      of proper  and effective monitoring      of the case we think it appropriate      to direct  that  the  final  report      which  is   submitted  to  the  CBI      Headquarters/Director be  submitted      in  its   original   form.......The      correct  position,   which  emerges      from  the   order  of  the  Supreme      Court, is  that the  report of  the      Joint  Director   is  not   to   be      submitted to  this Court  directly,      the same  has to  be  sent  to  the      Director, CBI/Headquarters and then      the same  is to  be filed  in  this      Court. As indicated above, there is      a very  thin  line  of  distinction      between vetting  and editing and if      this authority  to vet  the  report      submitted to  him is  given to  the      Director, he  may as  well  edit  a      part of  it. The  proper course, no      doubt, would be to hold discussions      across  the   table   between   the      Director, Joint Director and others      whose presence  may  be  considered      necessary so  that  difference,  if      any, between  them are  ironed  out      and   a    unanimous   report    is      submitted.   However,    if    such      unanimity is not possible to arrive      at, the  Director must  submit  the      original report as submitted to him      along with  his  comments/views  so      that this  Court may  consider that      too    and     issue    appropriate      directions." In para 5, the following: Portion ‘D’:      "....In  those   cases   also   the      conspiracy angle does not appear to      have been  gone into,  which is  so      vital for proper investigation into      the crimes  and in respect of which      judicial finding  has been recorded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    in the main judgment." In para 6, the following: Portion ‘E’:      "In this  connection we  would also      like to  impress upon  the Director      to consider  in  consultation  with      the Joint Director the desirability      of posting/retaining  officers, who      do not  belong to this State or the      state cadre.  Keeping in  view  the      involvement of  a very large number      of persons  of  different  hue  and      kind, chances  of their influencing      persons  having   local  background      cannot be ruled out....". In para 8, the following: Portion ‘F’:      "...The reports  contain  materials      which constitute  prima facie  case      against the  persons concerned  and      it is  not persons concerned and it      is not  understandable  as  to  why      chargesheet cannot  be submitted on      the basis of the materials referred      to therein..."      The learned  Attorney General  submitted that the above e tracts of  the two  orders made  by  the  High  Court,  in particular,  are   unwarranted  apart   from  certain  other observations therein which could have been avoided. In reply Shri Ram  Jethmalani submitted  that the observations of the High  Court   have  to  be  understood  in  the  context  as indicating  the  manner  in  which  the  Central  Bureau  of Investigation. He submitted that a grievance of this kind by the CBI does not appear to be appropriate.      At the  outset, we  would indicate  that the  nature of proceedings before  the High  Court is  somewhat similar  to those pending  in this  Court in  Writ Petition  (Crl.) Nos. 340-343 of  1993, Vineet  Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., and  Writ Petition  (Civil) No.  640 of  1995,  Anukul Chandra Pradhan  Vs. Union  of India & Ors., and, therefore, the High  Court is  required to proceed with the matter in a similar manner.  It has to be borne in mind that the purpose of these proceedings is essentially to ensure performance of the statutory  duty by  the CBI  and  the  other  Government agencies   in   accordance   with   law   for   the   proper implementation of  the rule of law. To achieve this object a fair,  honest   and  expeditious  investigation  into  every reasonable  accusation   against  each   and  every   person reasonably suspected  of involvement in the alleged offences has to  be made strictly in accordance with law. The duty of the Court  in such proceedings is, therefore, to ensure that the CBI  and other  Government agencies do their duty and do so strictly  in conformity  with law.  In these proceedings, the Court  is not  required to  go into  the merits  of  the accusation or  even to express any opinion thereon, which is a matter  for consideration  by the competent court in which the charge-sheet  is filed  and the  accused  have  to  face trial.  It   is,  therefore,  necessary  that  not  even  an observation relating to the merits of the accusation is made by the  Court in  these proceedings  lest it  prejudice  the accused at the trial. The nature of these proceedings may be described  as  that  of  ‘continuing  mandamus’  to  require performance of  its duty  by the CBI and the other concerned Government agencies.  The concerned  agencies must  bear  in mind and, if needed, be reminded of the caution administered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

by Lord Denning in this behalf in R. Vs. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 1968 (1) All. E.R. 763. Indicating the duty of the Commissioner of Police, Lord Denning stated thus:-      "...I have  no hesitation, however,      in   holding   that,   like   every      constable in  the land,  he  should      be,  and  is,  independent  of  the      executive. He is not subject to the      orders   of    the   secretary   of      State.....I hold  it to be the duty      of the  Commissioner of  Police, as      it is  of every chief constable, to      enforce the  law of  the  land.  He      must take  steps so to post his men      that crimes  may be  detected;  and      that honest  citizens may  go about      their affairs  in  peace.  He  must      decide  whether   or  no  suspected      persons are  to be prosecuted; and,      if need  be, bring  the prosecution      or see  that it  is brought; but in      all these  things  he  is  not  the      servant of  anyone, save of the law      itself. No  Minister of  the  Crown      can tell  him that he must, or must      not, keep observation on this place      or that;  or that  he must, or must      not, prosecute  this  man  or  that      one. Nor  can any  police authority      tell  him  so.  The  responsibility      tell him so. The responsibility for      law enforcement  lies on him. He is      answerable to  the law  and to  the      law alone...."      The nature  of such  a proceeding in a Court of law was also indicated by Lord Denning, as under:      "A question may be raised as to the      machinery  by  which  he  could  be      compelled  to   do  his   duty.  On      principle, it seems to me that once      a duty  exists, there  should be  a      means of  enforcing it.  This  duty      can be enforced, I think, either by      action at the suit of the Attorney-      General:  or   by  the  prerogative      order of mandamus...".                  (Page 769)              (emphasis supplied)      There can  hardly be  any doubt  that the obligation of the police in our constitutional scheme is no less.      According  to  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  the formation of  the opinion  as to  whether or  not there is a case to  place the  accused for  trial is that of the police officer making  the investigation  and the final step in the investigation is  to be  taken only  by the police and by no other authority, (See, Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC  117 = 1967 (3) SCR 668). This must be borne in mind as also  that the scope and purpose of a proceeding like the present is  to ensure  a proper  and faithful performance of its duty  by the police officer by resort to the prerogative writ of mandamus.      To ensure  this aspect,  we had directed in our earlier order dated  November 5,  1996 that in case of difference of opinion at  any stage  during the  investigation, the  final decision is  not to  be taken  by the  Director, CBI  or any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

other officer but by the Attorney General on reference being made to  him  of  the  difference  of  opinion  between  the concerned officers.  This part of our earlier directions was clear in  the context in which it was made and this is to be understood  as   a  direction   to  the  Director,  CBI  for compliance in  the manner  indicated. The High Court is only required to ensure that the Director, CBI does not close any investigation based  only upon  his  individual  opinion  if there be  any difference  of opinion  between  him  and  the concerned officers  in  the  CBI.  Such  a  matter  is  then required to  be referred  by the  Director to  the  Attorney General for  his opinion,  which would  govern  the  further action to  be taken therein. The above quoted portion ‘A’ of the order dated November 13, 1996 of the High Court requires the High Court to act in the manner herein indicated.      So far  as portion  ‘B’, as  quoted above, of the order dated November  13, 1996  is concerned, it is sufficient for us to  observe that  the High  Court would take into account the fact  that the personal presence of the Director, CBI in the High Court may be required only when it is essential for a purpose  which cannot  be served  by the  presence of  the other officers  of the CBI who normally represent the CBI at the hearings  in the  High Court.  In view  of the  numerous cases pending  in different  High Courts,  the Director, CBI personally may  not be  left with  sufficient time  from his official duties  to appear  personally at  the  hearings  of these matters in the High Courts. However, it is the duty of the Director,  CBI to  ensure proper  representation on  his behalf in the High Court so that the High Court gets all the assistance needed at the hearings.      The observations  of the  High Court  contained in  the above quoted portion ‘D’ in para 5 and portion ‘F’ in para 8 of its  order, do  not appear  to conform  strictly  to  the manner of  exercise of  the monitoring process by the Court. It is  likely that  they may  be construed  as expression of opinion on  the merits of the case. Portion ‘C’ in para 4 of the High  Court’s order  appears to  be unnecessary. For the purpose of  properly monitoring  the case  in terms  of  the order of  this Court,  keeping in  view the  nature of  this proceeding and  the manner  in which  the exercise  is to be performed to  ensure performance  of its  duty by  the  CBI, guidance through  the counsel  for the  CBI could  have been given by  the High Court without entering into the merits of any of the accusations.      The only  remaining portion  of the  High Court’s order for consideration  is Portion  ‘E’ in  para 6. Suffice it to say  that  the  High  Court  has  merely  suggested  to  the Director, CBI  to consider the desirability of not involving any officer  of the  Bihar cadre in the investigation but no such directing  has been  given. It  appears that  the  High Court intended to impress upon the Director, CBI the need to consider avoiding  any possible embarrassment to officers of the Bihar  cadre in  view of  the suspicion  of the  alleged involvement  of  several  important  persons  in  the  State administration. We do not read the observations to mean that they cast  any aspersion on the officers of the Bihar cadre. The learned Attorney General also did not further press this objection since  this observation  has to be so construed in the context.      It appears  to  us  necessary  to  reiterate  that  the proceeding before  the High  Court in the present case being somewhat similar  to the proceedings in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 340-343  of 1993,  Vineet Narain  & Ors.  Vs. Union  of India &  Ors., and  Writ Petition  (Civil) No.  640 of 1995, Anukul Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India & Ors., pending in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

this Court, the procedure required to be adopted by the High Court has  to be  on the  same lines.  We also  consider  it appropriate to  draw the  attention of  the CBI and the High Court to  the orders  of this  Court made  in these  matters indicating the  manner of performance of the duty. In Vineet Narain &  Ors. Vs.  Union of India & Anr., 1996 (2) SCC 199, it was said:      "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.      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."                (Page 201)      In Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1996 (3) Scale (SP) 15, it was said:      "To  eliminate  any  impression  of      bias   and    avoid   erosion    of      credibility of  the  investigations      being  made  by  the  CBI  and  any      reasonable impression  of  lack  of      fairness and  objectivity  therein,      it is  directed that  the CBI would      not  take  any  instructions  from,      report   to,    or   furnish    any      particulars    thereof    to    any      authority personally  interested in      or likely  to be  affected  by  the      outcome of  the investigations into      any  accusation.   This   direction      applies even  in  relation  to  any      authority      which      exercises      administrative control over the CBI      by virtue  of the  office he holds,      without any  exception. We  may add      that this  also accords  with  that      the learned  Solicitor General  has      very  fairly  submitted  before  us      about the  mode of  functioning  of      the CBI in this matter."      In Anukul  Chandra Pradhan  Vs. Union  of India & Ors., 1996 (6) SCC 354, its was said:      "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      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

    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." (Pages 356 - 357)      The true  purpose and  scope of  a proceeding  of  this nature clearly  emerges from  the above quoted orders passed in the  cases pending  in this Court. Some of the orders are indicated above.  The required guidance to the CBI and other government agencies  as well  as to  the courts’  monitoring such investigations is available from the same. The delicate task of  ensuring implementation  of  the  rule  of  law  by requiring proper  performance of  its duty  by the  CBI  and other Government  agencies, while  taking care  to avoid the likelihood of  any prejudice  to the  accused at the ensuing trial because  of any  observation made on the merits of the accusation in  the present proceeding. We have no doubt that all concerned,  including the High Court, would bear in mind this aspect  to prevent any reasonable impression of erosion in the credibility of the judicial process.      We have  no doubt that the CBI and the High Court would proceed further  in the matter as indicated above. There can be no  grievance to  the CBI  or any  other authority if the High Court’s  order and  the proceedings  before it  are  so understood and  continued. We  make it  clear that the above orders made  by the  High Court  are  to  be  construed  and understood in the manner indicated herein.      These appeals are disposed of, accordingly.