W.P.(Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 and W.P.(C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013. Case: Manohar Lal Sharma Vs The Principal Secretary and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 and W.P.(C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013 |
| Judges | R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Sections 3(2), 8, 8(1), 8(2); Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 4(1); Prevention of Corruption Act; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 173(2) |
| Citation | 2014 (4) SCALE 619 |
| Judgement Date | March 28, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
-
In the course of hearing on the scope of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short "2003 Act), particularly Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) thereof and Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short "D.S.P.E. Act"), Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) handed over a written note. Besides the legal arguments submitted in the note, it is stated in paragraph 11 that OBI is ready to submit report/closure of all cases to this Court with copy to Central Vigilance Commission (C.V.C.) and C.V.C. may in turn can give its comments to this Court. However, this may not be treated as precedent for C.B.I. Mr. Amrendra Sharan submits orally that by the expression "court cases" in para 11 is meant for closure of preliminary enquiries. He further submits that till date, there are 20 matters where the Inquiry Officers recommended regular cases but C.B.I. head office ordered otherwise. A compilation thereof was handed over by Mr. Amrendra Sharan to us in the Court.
In Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 104, generally described as 2G case, this Court considered the scope of Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(c) of the 2003 Act and Section 4(1) of the D.S.P.E. Act and observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:
-
A combined reading of the directions given by this Court in Vineet Narain's case (supra) and Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(e) of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the Central Vigilance Commission is required to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in matters relating to the investigation of offences allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or an offence with which a public servant specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 2003 Act is charged at the same trial and give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under Section 4(1) of the 1946 Act. However, in view of proviso to Section 8(1)(b) of the 2003 Act the Central Vigilance Commission cannot, while exercising the power of superintendence under Clause (a) or giving directions under Clause (b), direct Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner. In other words, the power of superintendence cannot be used by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial