Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from an order of a Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing two notifications through which the State of Bihar and the Central Government had empowered the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate offences relating to destruction of documents seized by the Income Tax Department. The first respondent was a director of Continental Transport and Construction Corporation Limited, with his brothers Ramesh Gandhi and Mahesh Gandhi also being directors. In February 1993, the Income Tax Department conducted raids and seized documents. During the night of 8th and 9th March 1993, the seized documents were burnt after breaking open the office almirah. Local police registered FIR No. 159 dated 9 March 1993 under Sections 457, 436, 427, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984. The State of Bihar, by notification dated 2 June 1994, consented to CBI investigation; the Central Government, by notification dated 26 October 1994 issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, extended CBI powers and jurisdiction. CBI registered a fresh case RC.1(S)/95(D) on 3 January 1995. The respondent challenged the notifications. Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had directed shifting of investigation venue and change of investigating officers, but that order was set aside by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1155 of 1995. The Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court had dismissed a similar writ petition on 10 May 1995. Subsequently, the Patna High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition and quashed the notifications on the ground that they did not disclose reasons for entrusting investigation to CBI. The Supreme Court examined whether reasons were required, whether principles of natural justice applied, whether further investigation was permissible, and whether the Single Judge could disregard a coordinate bench decision. The Court held that the decision to investigate or the choice of investigating agency does not attract natural justice; an accused cannot dictate who should investigate. No provision of law requires recording of reasons on the face of the consent notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Court noted that the local police investigation was unsatisfactory, a final report was pending acceptance, and further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was permissible. The Court also observed that the Single Judge erred in ignoring the reasoned order of the Ranchi Bench. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondent's writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Investigation - Consent under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6 - No Requirement to Record Reasons in Notification - Notification by State Government consenting to CBI investigation need not disclose reasons; High Court erred in quashing for absence of reasons - Held that no provision requires reasons to be recorded on the face of consent notification (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Investigation - Natural Justice - Decision on Investigating Agency - An accused has no right to be heard on choice of investigating agency; principles of natural justice not attracted - Decision to investigate or agency to investigate does not attract principles of natural justice and accused cannot have a say - Held that challenge by accused was without merit (Paras Not mentioned). C) Criminal Procedure - Further Investigation - Section 173(8) CrPC - Permissibility of Further Investigation by CBI - Local police investigation found unsatisfactory, final report pending acceptance; further investigation by CBI with State consent valid - Held that further investigation is permissible and no reasons required in notification (Paras Not mentioned). D) Judicial Discipline - Precedent - Single Judge Bench - Single Judge of High Court should follow earlier coordinate bench decision - Ranchi Bench of same High Court had earlier upheld same notifications with reasoned order; later Single Judge erred in disregarding it - Held that same High Court cannot quash same notifications in disregard of earlier judgment (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether notifications under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 must disclose reasons for entrusting investigation to CBI; whether accused has any right to be heard on choice of investigating agency.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of Patna High Court quashing notifications dated 2.6.1994 and 26.10.1994 set aside. Writ petition filed by respondent dismissed.
Law Points
- consent notifications under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act need not record reasons
- accused has no right to be heard on choice of investigating agency
- natural justice not attracted to agency selection
- further investigation permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC
- judicial discipline requires following coordinate bench decisions
