Summary
The respondents addressed two letters to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court regarding mysterious death of two young boys living in Barrackpore area near Calcutta alleging, inter alia, that the local police was not conducting the investigation into the unnatural death of the two boys fairly and properly and was trying to make it a case of suicide and requested the High Court to order a thorough investigation into the incident by an independent machinery which would command confidence and be acceptable to the local police. A single Judge of the High Court, before whom the letters were placed, treated the two letters as a formal petition and, without giving notice directed issue of a rule to the State of West Bengal and other authorities to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus may not be issued directing investigation in accordance with law to be conducted over the unnatural death of the two boys. In the meanwhile the Judge also appointed Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation to make as inquiry and report to the High Court as to how 257
the two boys met their death. The appellants preferred an appeal against the said order before the Division Bench which also confirmed the order of the Single Judge with the modification that the DIG, CBI will act as a special officer. Hence this appeal.The appellants contended (i) that the order of the Single Judge was vitiated having been made in violation of rules of natural justice; (ii) that the order was also bad as the learned Single Judge had not cared to inform himself as to the stage of investigation and if there was any lacuna therein and he proceeded to act on certain assumptions for which there was no basis or foundation, (iii) that since there had been no breach of duty, the court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation which, under the law, was vested in the police authorities and therefore the directions given by the Single Judge and upheld with certain modifications by the Division Bench were not proper.Allowing the appeal,^HELD: 1. It is clear from the order passed by the Learned Single Judge that no bearing was afforded to the State Government or its officers when direction to appoint the special officer in whom power of inquiry was to be vested was made. There was no basis at that stage to assume that the contents of the letters as also the facts stated in the columns of the newspaper had not been contradicted. It was the State Government or its officers who alone could have authoritatively indicated the facts showing whether the allegations contained in the letters or the newspaper report were true and if so to what extent or how the investigation was being carried on and what stage it had reached so as to enable the court to come to a prima facie authorities were not discharging properly their statutory obligation to carry out an investigation But when no notice was given to the State Government and no opportunity was offered to them, it is difficult to see how an ex parte order could be made on such an assumption. If the facts stated in the letter or the writ petition are credible and there is such urgency that the ends of justice might be defeated by not making an ex parte order or giving of notice without ex parte order might lead to aggrevation of oppression or exploitation or removal or elimination of evidence, the court would certainly be justified in making an ex parte order. But in the instant case, there were no such circumstances at all and the court could have very well issued notice to the respondents and tried to find out whether there wag any necessity directing the appointment of DIG, CBI to act as a Special officer and requiring the police authorities of the State to extend all possible help as may be required by him. [270C-H: 271A](2) The appointment of a Special officer with a direction to enquire into the commission of an offence can only be on the basis that there has not been a proper investigation. There is a well defined hierarchical administrative set up of the police in the State of West Benga1 as in all other States and lo have created 3 new channel of inquiry or investigation is likely to create an impression that everything is not well with the statutory agency 258and it is likely to cast a stigma on the regular police hierarchy. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the nature of the order made in view, the direction to appoint a Special officer with powers to inquire should not have been made until the appellants has been given a hearing and the court had the papers of investigation laid before it for being prima facie satisfied that the investigation had either not been proper or adequate. [271C-E](3) Under the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down the procedure to be followed when report of an offence is lodged with the police, the power to investigate is vested in the police. The procedure laid down in the Code is clear and definite. Investigation is a matter for the police under the scheme of the Code. Judicial opinion seems to be settled and there are several authorities of the Supreme Court where interference by the Court into police investigation has not been approved. There is however. residuary jurisdiction left in the court to give directions to the investigating agency when it is satisfied that the requirements of the law are not being complied with and investigation is not being conducted properly or with due haste and promptitude. The court has to be alive to the fact that the scheme of the law is that the investigation has been entrusted to the police and it is ordinarily not subject to the normal supervisory power of the court. But in the instant case, the material placed before the court did not justify an exception to be made to the rule indicated by the Supreme Court and the appointment of a Special officer was not called for at this state. [262D; 270B; 278H; 279A-C]State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak [1983] 2 S C.R. 52S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari & Ors.[1970] 3 S.C.R 946.State of Bihar v J. A. C. Saldanha & Ors. [1980] 2 S.C-R. 16 followed. kings Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed [1944] L.R. 71 referred to.Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi [1983]3 S C.C. 344 held not applicable.(4) 'Inquiry' and 'investigation' are statutory terms defined in the Code. In the instant case whatever name the work entrusted to the Special officer be called, there can be no dispute that he was required to ascertain facts from the witnesses and documents, if any, in regard to the death of the two boys. This process necessarily involved a fact finding inquiry by ordinarily tapping the same sources as the investigating agency was expected to contact. This, therefore, necessarily involved a duplicate investigation.In view of the fact that there were two separate channels Placed in active charge of investigation to be conducted contemporaneously, confusion was bound to occur and working of the two channels at a time was likely to prejudice the proper investigation making the exposing of the truth buried under mystery more difficult. Carrying this duplicate process was not likely to serve the cause of justice nor help in achieving the object for which it had been set up.The Special officer was not to exercise the power under s.5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, and if be wanted any real 259assistance in the matter of investigation, it had to be carried through the police officers of the State Administration. This was likely to bring in futher confusion in as much as the witnesses were likely to be contacted by the same police office on more than one occasion-once in the course of investigation conducted by the police and again to meet the requirements of the Special officer. We are sure that the High Court never intended the cause of justice to be prejudiced and the serious attempt to find out the truth to be aborted. [273D-F; H; 274A-C](5) While section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 would require the consent of the Slate Government before jurisdiction under s.5 of that Act is exercised by officer of that establishment, when a direction is given by the court in an appropriate case, consent envisaged under s.6 of the Act would not be a condition precedent to compliance with the court's direction Section 6 of the Act does not apply when the court C gives a direction to the C.B.I. to conduct an investigation. In this view, the impugned order of the learned single judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG, CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attack for want of sanction under s.6 of the Act. [269B-D](6) ln the instant case, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of appointment of the Special officer and observed that the investigation carried out has not been quite satisfactory. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no necessity to take away the investigation from the hands of the State Police machinery which is the statutory agency. The court pointed out that though there are occasions when death remains a mystery in spite of the best of efforts, it hopes that with an honest attempt and since efforts made, the truth would be found out and the police authorities of the State would be in a position to give a creditable account of themselves.The court also suggested that the Director General of Police, West Bengal, will appoint a competent supervisory officer from the higher ranks of the State police with expertise in investigation to supervise the investigation in the present case. [279D; 282E-H]See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of West Bengal & Ors. Etc. VS. Sampat Lal & Ors. Etc.
PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ETC.Vs.RESPONDENT: SAMPAT LAL & ORS. ETC.DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1984BENCH: MISRA RANGNATHBENCH: MISRA RANGNATHBHAGWATI, P.N.SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)CITATION: 1985 AIR 195 1985 SCR (2) 256 1985 SCC (1) 317 1984 SCALE (2)942CITATOR INFO : RF 1985 SC 735 (4)RF 1991 SC1260 (42)ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Death under suspicious circumstances-Allegation of murder-lnvestigation still in the hands of police-High Court appointing a Special officer to inquire into the offence-Judicial interference in investigation When arises."inquiry" and "investigation"-Difference between.Natural Justice-Letter to the Chief Justice of High Court. treated as writ petition-Death under suspicious circumstances-Allegation of murder-High Court issuing direction lo enquire into causes of death-No opportunity given to the State Police officers-Whether violative of principles of Natural justice.Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946-ss. 5 and 6-Whether s.6 applicable when Court gives direction to C.B.I to conduct an investigation.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.570 of 1983.From the Judgment and order dated 27the September, 1983 of the Calcutta High Court in C.R. No. (W) of 1983 arising out of original order Tender No. 1583 of 1983.WITH Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2671 of 1983. From the Judgment and order dated 27th September, 1983 of the Calcutta High Court in C.R. No. (W) of 1983 arising out of original order Tender No. 1 583 of 1983.260 Somnath Chatterjee, HK Puri, S. Ghosh and VK Behl for the petitioners.Ashok Sen, Shankar Das Banerjee, DN Das and Shri Narain, for the respondents.KG Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General. RN Poddar Miss Halida Khatoon for the Union of India.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRANGANATH MISRA, J. The appeal is under Article 134 (a) with leave from the Calcutta High Court and is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of that Court dated September 27, 1983. The Special Leave Petition is under Article 136 of the Constitution and is also directed against the same decision. Both these matters are thus connected and arise out of the incident relating to the death of two young boys of Barrackpore area near Calcutta. This judgment of ours will dispose of both the matters.Two letters, one by one Sampat Lal, respondent I in the criminal appeal and another by respondents l (a) to I (n), both dated June 1, 1983, were received by the learned Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. The letter sent by Sampat Lal alleged that two young boys by names Tirthankar Das Sharma and Sanjib Chatterjee, living in Barrackpore area, were missing sinc...
See the full content of this document