Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5897 of 2013. Case: Manjeet Singh Khera Vs State of Maharashtra. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5897 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. |
| Judges | K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri, JJ. |
| Issue | Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1), 13(2); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 109; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 154, 161(3), 164, 173, 173(5), 173(6), 207, 313; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 173(5); Constitution of India - Article 21 |
| Citation | 2013 (6) ABR 521, 2013 (3) ACR 3416, 2013 (IX) AD (SC) 210, 2013 (83) ALLCC 170, 2013 (4) BomCR 727 (Cri), 2013 CriLJ 4884, 2013 (4) JLJR 81, 2013 (4) JCC 2773, JT 2013 (11) SC 465, 2013 (3) KLJ 790, 2013 (3) KLT 835, 2013 (4) PLJR 225, 2013 (4) RCR 496 (Cri), 2013 (10) SCALE 525, 2013 (9) SCC 276 |
| Judgement Date | August 21, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the prosecution is bound to produce the original complaint/application filed by an unknown person, based on which an inquiry was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau.
2. The Petitioner (first accused) along with three others moved an application before the Special Sessions Court of Greater Bombay for a direction to the prosecution/Anti Corruption Bureau to produce the original complaint/application filed by an unknown person, leading the accused person to be charge-sheeted for offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Petitioner submitted that on the basis of that complaint an open enquiry No. 31/198 was conducted and following that Special Case No. 39 of 1999 was registered against the accused person. It was brought out that one complaint/application was received by the Anti Corruption Bureau and copy of that application was forwarded to the Home Department. PW1 had deposed that he could not disclose the name of the person who had sent that complaint. It was mentioned therein that the first accused was having huge movable and immovable property at Bombay, Aurangabad and Nagpur. The first accused wanted a copy of the original complaint to be produced before the court as well as the name of the person who had sent that complaint.
4. The prosecution resisted the application preferred by the first accused contending that the prosecution would not be relying upon the complaint/application sought to be produced. On the other hand, discreet enquiry was conducted based on that application and after collecting sufficient materials, the prosecution lodged first information report and thereafter investigation was carried out. Further it was pointed out that prosecution cannot examine the person who gave the complaint/application, otherwise no person would pass on any secret information to the Anti Corruption Bureau.
5. The Special Judge, Prevention of Anti Corruption, found no basis in the application calling upon for the production of the original complaint as well as the name of the complainant, who had sent the complaint and rejected the application vide his order dated 29.01.2011, which was confirmed by the High Court on 25.02.2013, against which this special leave petition has been preferred.
6. Shri Amol Chitale, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is not interested in getting the name of the person who made the complaint, but wanted to know the contents of the complaint, which cannot be said to be secret information. Learned Counsel also submitted that prosecution cannot exercise privilege of non-disclosure of the information they have received, which lead to the investigation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in V.K. Sasikala v. State Represented by Superintendent of Police (2012) 9 SCC 771 and submitted that when accused applies for inspection of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CRL.M.C.--2873/2015. Case: C B I Vs. DHARAMBIR KHATTAR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...such information. 8. To strengthen his arguments, ld. ASG has relied upon a case of Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (9) SCC 276 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as “We state at the cost of repetition that the prosecution has categorically taken the stand that they do ......
-
Crl. M.C. 2873/2015. Case: C B I Vs Dharambir Khattar. High Court of Delhi (India)
...such information. 8. To strengthen his arguments, ld. ASG has relied upon a case of Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (9) SCC 276 whereby the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as "We state at the cost of repetition that the prosecution has categorically taken the stand that they do......
-
Criminal Revision Application (Against order passed by Subordinate Court) No. 427 of 2014. Case: State of Gujarat Vs Fulesh. High Court of Gujarat (India)
... ... II. In the case of Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 276, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ... ...
-
CRL.REV.P.--574/2016. Case: SMT KAVITA Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...be violated. Emphasizing the need of on record the documents which are in favour of the accused, the Court in the decision reported as 2013 (9) SCC 276 Manjeet Singh Khera vs. State of Maharashtra The Court also noticed that seizure of large number of documents in the course of investigatio......
-
CRL.M.C.--2873/2015. Case: C B I Vs. DHARAMBIR KHATTAR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...such information. 8. To strengthen his arguments, ld. ASG has relied upon a case of Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (9) SCC 276 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as “We state at the cost of repetition that the prosecution has categorically taken the stand that they do ......
-
Crl. M.C. 2873/2015. Case: C B I Vs Dharambir Khattar. High Court of Delhi (India)
...such information. 8. To strengthen his arguments, ld. ASG has relied upon a case of Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (9) SCC 276 whereby the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as "We state at the cost of repetition that the prosecution has categorically taken the stand that they do......
-
Criminal Revision Application (Against order passed by Subordinate Court) No. 427 of 2014. Case: State of Gujarat Vs Fulesh. High Court of Gujarat (India)
... ... II. In the case of Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 276, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ... ...
-
CRL.REV.P.--574/2016. Case: SMT KAVITA Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...be violated. Emphasizing the need of on record the documents which are in favour of the accused, the Court in the decision reported as 2013 (9) SCC 276 Manjeet Singh Khera vs. State of Maharashtra The Court also noticed that seizure of large number of documents in the course of investigatio......