CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 472 of 2008 PETITIONER: Divine Retreat Centre RESPONDENT: State of Kerala & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2008 BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2234 of 2007)
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. What is the scope, content and ambit of the
inherent power conferred on the High Court under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code)
is the central question that falls for our consideration in this
appeal.
3. The relevant facts, giving rise to this appeal, have
been set out in the impugned judgment of the High Court but
they have to be recapitulated in order to enable us to give our
reasons for the findings which we will be arriving at on the
interpretation.
4. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed by
Divine Retreat Centre assailing the judgment and order dated
10.3.2006 of the High Court of Kerala rendered in Criminal
M.C. No. 405 of 2006, directing investigation of Crime No. 381
of 2005 of Koratty Police Station to be taken away from the
Investigating Officer and entrusting the same to a Special
Investigation Team headed by Vinson M. Paul, I.P.S. Inspector
General of Police, presently working as Managing Director of
Kerala Police Housing Construction Corporation,
Thiruvananthapuram. The High Court also directed the same
authority to investigate/inquire into various other allegations
leveled in an anonymous petition filed against Divine Retreat
Centre. The impugned judgment and order arises out of the
proceedings suo motu initiated by the Court on the basis of
anonymous petition addressed to Justice Padmanabhan Nair.
5. The tell-tale facts disclosed from the record may
have to be noted in some detail. One Mini Varghese, a female
remand prisoner, sent a petition to the District Judge,
Kozhikode, inter alia, alleging that while she was taking
shelter in Divine Retreat Centre she had been subjected to
molestation and exploitation and became pregnant from
Father Jose Thadathil (later identified as Father Mathew
Thadathil). When she came out of Centre to attend her
sisters marriage she was implicated in a false theft case and
lodged in the jail.
6. The District Judge having received the petition on
28.7.2005 forwarded the same to the concerned Magistrate on
9.8.2005 to do the needful. The Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Koyilandi recorded the statement of the victim on
11.8.2005 and thereafter the matter was transferred to the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chalakuddy. The learned
Magistrate having received the records ordered investigation.
A case was registered in Crime No. 381 of 2005 under Section
376(g) I.P.C. at Koratty Police Station.
7. For whatever reasons, the District Judge sent a copy of
the petition received by him to the Registrar of Kerala High
Court which was placed before Thankappan, J. who in turn
directed complaint to be forwarded to the Superintendent of
Police, Thrissur to cause an inquiry and if necessary to
register a case and report to the Court. The Superintendent of
Police as well as the Circle Inspector of Police (Investigating
Officer) submitted their reports duly informing the Registry
that a case has already been registered and was being
investigated.
8. On 28.10.2005, District Judge, Kozhikode, addressed a
letter to the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala enclosing
anonymous Petition dated 26.10.2005 received by him
addressed to Justice K. Padmanabhan Nair. The Petition was
accompanied by photocopies of certain press reports and three
Video C.Ds. In his covering letter, the District Judge referred
to the facts leading to the registration of Crime No. 381 of
2005 on the file of Koratty Police Station on 31.8.2005 under
Section 376(g) I.P.C. and further stated:
In the meantime, Smt. Mini Varghese
delivered. The Local Police, while arresting her
in connection with a theft case had seized a
mobile phone from her. The police produced
that mobile phone in the J.F.M.C., Koyilandy.
That mobile phone was forwarded to the J.F.M.
Chalakuddy for investigation as the concerned
priest was said to have made several calls to
the lady in that mobile phone. Later, I
happened to see some press reports (I am
enclosed the 3rd page of the N.I.E. dt. 13.10.05
which carried a report, DNA Test? Oh No) to
the effect that the police is not properly
investigating the case and instead, are more
interested in tracing her antecedents and
alleged bad character. They did not reportedly
collect the details of calls to the mobile phone
seized from the lady, which would have given
some clue regarding the alleged connection.
Nor did they attempt a DNA test. The lady had
complained to me that she is afraid to come
out of the jail on bail as she is under threat. I
do not know what is the present stage of the
investigation.
9. The matter was accordingly placed before
Padmanabhan Nair, J. by the Registry who in turn directed
the matter to be placed before the Registrar General for
necessary action by his endorsement dated 21.12.2005.
10. The matter was accordingly placed before
Padmanabhan Nair, J. on 24.1.2006 by the Registry in the
following manner:
Shri Thomas P. Joseph, District Judge,
Kozhikode has sent a communication dated
28.10.2005, enclosing a complaint addressed
to the Honble Mr. Justice K. Padmanabhan
Nair. The communication of the learned
District Judge and the complaint are self-
explanatory.
If any steps are to be taken with regard to the
matter may kindly be indicated.
The learned judge on the same day made the following
endorsement:
Please verify and report whether the FPR Mini
Varghese had sent any petition to this Court
and if so what action was taken on that
petition?
Thereafter the Registry re-submitted the whole file before
Padmanabhan Nair, J as under:
It appears that Smt. Mini Varghese, FRP
287, District Jail, Kozhikode had sent a
complaint to the Honble High Court, narrating
her agonies. The matter was placed before the
Honble Mr. Justice K. Thankappan, since His
Lordship was dealing with the petitions sent
from jail. As per the order of the Honble
Judge, the petition was sent to the
Superintendent of Police, Thrissur for an
enquiry and if found necessary, to register a
case. It was also directed that the
Superintendent of Police would file a report
before this Court within a reasonable time.
Presumably, in pursuance of the said
direction, it appears that Crime No. 381/2005
under Sec. 376(g) of the IPC was registered in
the Koratty Police Station on 31.08.2005.
When the above matter was reported to
this Court, the Honble Judge, as per His
Lordships order dated 22.12.2005 directed
that the matter be closed.
The entire file is submitted.
On re-submission of the file, the learned judge passed the
following order on 8.2.2006 thus:
I have carefully gone through
Anonymous petition and the documents
endorsed along with. One of the documents
enclosed alongwith the petition is a petition
submitted by FPR 287, Mini Varghese raising
an allegation of rape against the head of the
Divine Centre Muringoor Rw. Fr. Mathew
Thadathil. Of course in the petition she had
given the name as Jose Thadthil but there is
no room for any doubt regarding the identity of
the person.
It is seen that this court had forwarded the
petition received from Smt. Mini Varghese to
the Suptd. Of Police TCR for necessary action
on 7-9-05. The Suptd. Of Police had filed a
statement on 5-11-05 to the effect that a
Crime as Case No.381 of 2005 at Koratthy
Police Station u/s 376(g) of I.P. Code is
registered and the same is being investigated
by the C I of Police Chalakkudy. The CI of
Chalakkudy had also submitted a similar
statement on 31-10-05.
It is seen that on 8-11-05 the report of the CI
was brought to the notice of the Honble Judge
who was dealing with the petition received
from jail. He passed an order on 22-12-05 to
close the file.
In the meanwhile another petition is seen
received from the FPR 287. That petition was
forwarded to this court on 11-11-05 and
received in this court only on 21-11-05. The
Registry had noted that the file was already
put up to KT(J) and the petition was to be
incorporated in the file.
In the above said the FPR 287 had raised
serious allegation regarding the investigation.
It is stated that two police men went to the jail
but they did not make enquiry regarding her
allegation of rape alleged against the priest.
Even though there is an order to close the file
Crl.PP 57929/05. I am of the view that
subsequent petition ought to have treated a
separate petition praying for an order for
proper investigation and separate action taken.
I am of the view that petition can also be
clubbed with the anonymous petition.
A perusal of the anonymous petition dated 26-
10-05 shows it contains serious allegation. So
it is only just and proper the matter is taken
on the judicial side especially in view of the
allegation of involvement of senior IAS and IPS
officers.
So there will be direction to the Registry to
treat the anonymous petition alongwith
petition of FPR 287 received in the court on
21-11-05 as petitions praying for an order for
proper investigation and Register as a suo
motu Crl. Misc. Case. Serve a copy of the
above stated petition to the Director General of
Prosecution. The copies of the documents
except the CDs may also be given to him.
Keep the CD under safe custody for the time
being till a decision is taken in the matter.
Register the Crl. Misc. Case and post for
admission.
11. Be it noted that the complaint/Petition dated
27.10.2005 received from Mini Varghese by the Registry on
21.11.2005 was placed in the same file based on which
Thankappan, J initially ordered an inquiry. Thereafter the
entire matter was placed before Thankappan, J on 22.12.2005
itself and the learned Judge directed the closure of the matter
thus: No further probe is necessary. Close the file. This
fact was also brought to the notice of Padmanabhan Nair, J.
12. However, the learned Judge was of the view that the
subsequent petition sent by Mini Varghese dated 27.10.2005
ought to have been treated as a separate petition praying for
an order for proper investigation. The learned Judge was also
of the view that the said petition was required to be clubbed
with the anonymous petition.
13. The Registry in compliance with the directions so
issued by the learned judge promptly registered a case in
Criminal M.C. No. 405 of 2006 under Section 482 of the Code
in which the persons against whom accusations were made
have been duly impleaded as the respondents. The matter was
listed for admission in the court on 10.2.2006 and was
adjourned to 15.2.2006 for serving a notice upon the learned
Director General of Prosecution (Public Prosecutor). The
learned Judge heard the matter and reserved the case for
order. The impugned order was passed on 10.3.2006.
SUBMISSIONS:
14. The validity of the said order is impugned in this
appeal on various grounds. Shri Anil B. Divan, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
the whole procedure adopted to entertain and initiate
proceedings culminating in passing the impugned order
suffers from incurable procedural and substantive infirmities
rendering the order void. It was further contended that the
impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction. The
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is
not available to order investigation into any case by the police.
The learned senior counsel proceeded to contend that the
directions issued by the High Court could not have been
issued even in a public interest litigation under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. On merits, the learned senior
counsel submitted that neither the complaint of the victim nor
the anonymous petition discloses any irregularity in the
matter of investigation. The directions issued by the learned
Judge are inquisitorial in nature and sweeping in their width
and amplitude directing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to
find out as to whether the appellant committed any crime and
if so to investigate into such crime. Such a course is
impermissible in law.
15. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents supported the impugned order. It
was submitted that there are no limits imposed in the matter
of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code so
long as the directions do not run counter to statutory
provisions. It was alternatively contended that if for any
reason the impugned order is not traceable to Section 482 of
the Code the same could be considered as the one passed by
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It was also submitted that the appellant has no locus to
challenge the impugned order inasmuch as it is not an
accused in any criminal case. It was also contended that even
the accused in a criminal case has no right of hearing until
filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code.
NATURE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CODE QUA THE REGISTRATION OF A CRIME AND
INVESTIGATION:
16. The well defined and demarcated functions in the
field of crime detection by the police and its subsequent
adjudication by the Courts is so well known and had been
recognized way back in Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad .
The Privy Council observed that just as it is essential that
every one accused of a crime should have free access to a
Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not
guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the
utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with
the police in matters which are within their province and into
which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. It is
held:
In India as has been shown there is a
statutory right on the part of the police to
investigate the circumstances of an alleged
cognizable crime without requiring any
authority from the judicial authorities, and it
would, as their Lordships think, be an
unfortunate result if it should be held possible
to interfere with those statutory rights by an
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary not overlapping and the
combination of individual liberty with a due
observance of law and order is only to be
obtained by leaving each to exercise its own
function, always, of course, subject to the right
of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case
when moved under S. 491, Criminal P.C., to
give directions in the nature of habeas corpus.
In such a case as the present, however, the
Courts functions begin when a charge is
preferred before it and not until then. It has
sometimes been thought that S. 561A has given
increased powers to the Court which it did not
possess before that section was enacted. But
this is not so. The section gives no new powers,
it only provides that those which the Court
already inherently possess shall be preserved
and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it
should be considered that the only powers
possessed by the Court are those expressly
conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code, and
that no inherent power had survived the
passing of that Act. (emphasis supplied)
17. In S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & ors. ,
this Court took the view that there is no mention of any power
to stop an investigation by the police. The power of the police
to investigate any cognizable offence is uncontrolled by the
Magistrate, and it is only in cases where the police decide not
to investigate the case, the Magistrate can intervene and either
direct an investigation, or, in the alternative, himself proceed
or depute a Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to
enquire into the case. The power of the police to investigate
has been made independent of any control by the Magistrate.
It is further held:
though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to
the police unfettered power to investigate all
cases where they suspect that a cognizable
offence has been committed, in appropriate
cases an aggrieved person can always seek a
remedy by invoking the power of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution under
which, if the High Court could be convinced that
the power of investigation has been exercised
by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can
always issue a writ of mandamus restraining
the police officer from misusing his legal
powers.
This position has been made further clear by this Court in its
authoritative pronouncement in State of Bihar & anr. Vs.
J.A.C. Saldanha & ors. thus:
25. There is a clear-cut and well demarcated
sphere of activity in the field of crime detection
and crime punishment. Investigation of an
offence is the field exclusively reserved for the
executive through the police department the
superintendence over which vests in the State
Government. The executive which is charged
with a duty to keep vigilance over law and
order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if
an offence is alleged to have been committed it
is its bounden duty to investigate into the
offence and bring the offender to book. Once it
investigates and finds an offence having been
committed it is its duty to collect evidence for
the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is
completed and the investigating officer submits
report to the Court requesting the Court to take
cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of
the Code its duty comes to an end. On a
cognizance of the offence being taken by the
Court the police function of investigation comes
to an end subject to the provision contained in
Section 173(8), there commences the
adjudicatory function of the judiciary to
determine whether an offence has been
committed and if so, whether by the person or
persons charged with the crime by the police in
its report to the Court, and to award adequate
punishment according to law for the offence
proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is
thus a well defined and well demarcated
function in the field of crime detection and its
subsequent adjudication between the police and
the Magistrate. This has been recognised way
back in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir
Ahmad
pp26. This view of the Judicial Committee
clearly demarcates the functions of the
executive and the judiciary in the field of
detection of crime and its subsequent trial and
it would appear that the power of the police to
investigate into a cognizable offence is
ordinarily not to be interfered with by the
judiciary. (emphasis is of ours)
18. The observations of this Court in M.C. Abraham &
Anr.Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. in this regard deserve
to be noticed. In the said case it was held:
The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is
for the investigating agency to submit a report
to the Magistrate after full and complete
investigation. The Investigating agency may
submit a report finding the allegations
substantiated. It is also open to the
investigating agency to submit a report finding
no material to support the allegations made in
the first information report. It is open to the
Magistrate concerned to accept the report or to
order further enquiry. But what is clear is that
the Magistrate cannot direct the investigating
agency to submit a report that is in accord with
his views. Even in a case where a report is
submitted by the investigating agency finding
that no case is made out for prosecution, it is
open to the Magistrate to disagree with the
report and to take cognizance, but what he
cannot do is to direct the investigating agency to
submit a report to the effect that the allegations
have been supported by the material collected
during the course of investigation.
19. In State of West Bengal Vs. S.N. Basak , this
Court reiterated the principle that the police has statutory
right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged
cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate and
that power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered
with by the exercise of power under the inherent power of the
High Court. In Hazari Lal Gupta Vs. Rameshwar Prasad &
Anr. Etc. , this Court while explaining the nature and purport
of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court observed that in
exercising jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898, the High Court can quash proceedings
if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the
institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court
does not ordinarily enquire as to whether the evidence is
reliable or not. Where again, investigation into the
circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on
under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code the High
Court dos not interfere with such investigation because it
would then be the impeding investigation and jurisdiction of
statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. The State of West
Bengal & Anr. this Court held that:
The police authorities have under Sections 154
and 156 of the Code a statutory right to
investigate into a cognizable offence without
requiring any sanction from a judicial authority
and even the High Court has no inherent power
under Section 561-A of the Code to interfere
with the exercise of that statutory power.
21. In State of W.B. & Ors. Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana [
2004) 4 SCC 129], this Court while dealing with the nature
of inherent powers of the High Court held that the inherent
power of the High Court is saved only where an order has been
passed by the Criminal Court which is required to be set aside
to secure the ends of justice or where the proceedings pending
before a court amounts to abuse of the process of Court. The
power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the
High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal
court or where a power is exercised by the Court under the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
22. In our view, there is nothing like unlimited arbitrary
jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code. The power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the
tests laid down in the Section itself. It is well settled that
Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court
but only saves the inherent power which the court possessed
before the enactment of the Code. There are three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code,
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice.
23. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was), in
Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana while
considering the nature of jurisdiction conferred upon the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code observed:
It ought to be realised that inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High
Court to act according to whim or caprice. That
statutory power has to be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection and in the rarest of rare
cases.
24. Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel contended
that in the instant case the High Court properly exercised its
inherent power in entertaining the grievance of victim alleging
bias on the part of the Investigating Officer which is also one
of the allegations made in the anonymous complaint. The
submission was that the power available to the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code is so wide and cannot be
subjected to any limitation, except in cases where there is a
specific provision in the Code to provide adequate remedies to
the aggrieved person. The inherent power is co-extensive with
the text of the Code and it can be exercised in respect of any of
the matters covered by the Code, be it investigation, inquiry or
trial. The learned counsel in support of the submissions relied
upon the decisions of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
L. Muniswamy & Ors. , Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr. & Popular
Muthiah Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police .
25. In Muniswamy (supra) the learned Sessions Judge
refused to discharge the accused therein and proceeded for
framing specific charges as made out from the material on
record against the accused persons. The High Court of
Karnataka in the exercise of its inherent power quashed the
proceedings initiated by the State of Karnataka and
accordingly discharged the accused. The High Court as well
as this Court found that there was no material on the record
on which any court could reasonably convict the accused for
any offence. It is under those circumstances this Court came
to the conclusion that it would be a sheer waste of public time
and money to permit the proceedings to continue against the
accused. In that regard this Court observed:
The saving of the High Courts inherent
powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is
designed to achieve a salutary public purpose
which is that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution.
26. In Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) this
Court cautioned that the inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and the High Court
should refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when
the evidence has not been collected and produced before the
Court.
27. In Popular Muthiah (supra) this Court summarized
the law as to when the High Court can exercise its inherent
jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. The
law was stated in the following manner:
(i) Power can be exercised suo motu in
the interest of justice. If such a power is
not conceded, it may even lead to
injustice to an accused.
(ii) Such a power can be exercised
concurrently with the appellate or
revisional jurisdiction and no formal
application is required to be filed therefor.
(iii) However, the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is not unlimited. It can inter
alia be exercised where the Code is silent,
where the power of the court is not
treated as exhaustive, or there is a
specific provision in the Code; or the
statute does not fall within the purview of
the Code because it involves application
of a special law. It acts ex debito
justitiae. It can, thus, do real and
substantial justice for which alone it
exists.
28. In our view, none of the decisions upon which
reliance has been placed lend any support to the submissions
made by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. On
the other hand, in Popular Muthiah (supra) this Court held
that the High Court was not correct in issuing direction to
take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what
section the appellant therein has to be charged and tried and
directing CB,CID to take up the matter and reinvestigate and
prosecute the appellant therein. Such a power does not come
within the purview of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Investigation of an offence is a statutory power of
the police. The State in its discretion may get the investigation
done by any agency unless there exists an extraordinary
situation. This Court further held that the High Court
cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a
particular angle or by a particular agency.
29. The question that arises for our consideration is
whether the contents of the petition submitted by the victim
and as well as the allegations made in the anonymous
complaint reveal any cause for issuing directions relieving the
Investigating Officer of his statutory power and duty to
investigate Crime No. 381 of 2005 under Section 376(g) of the
Indian Penal Code?
30. The allegations in the anonymous complaint are in
two parts. The first part relates to Crime No. 381 of 2005
wherein it is alleged that investigation in crime has been put
to cold storage due to influence exerted at high places. This is
required to be considered along with the petition sent by the
victim herself making certain allegations against the police in
general. The allegations are against two police constables
that they have tortured her mentally in connection with the
investigation of the case. She complained that truth will never
come out if the case is entrusted to the police for investigation.
She prayed for a confidential investigation. Neither the
anonymous petition nor the complaint made by the victim has
been directed against the Investigating Officer complaining of
any bias or any attempt on his part to destroy the available
evidence.
31. Be it noted that Thankappan, J. vide order dated
22.12.2005 having perused the file including the petition
submitted by the victim directed the matter to be closed as
it required no further probe.
32. Be that as it may, Crime No. 381 of 2005 itself was
registered pursuant to the order of the Magistrate under
Section 156 (3) of the Code. We are unable to appreciate as to
how the learned Judge could have ordered investigation by
Special Investigation Team constituted by himself on the
strength of such wild, imaginary and vague allegations. It is
difficult to discern the basis for arriving at the conclusion that
the entire attempt of the Investigating Officer was to exonerate
the accused and make the complainant as accused. The
investigation was in progress as is evident from the case diary.
The Special Investigation Team also proceeded on the same
lines as that of the Investigating Officer and similar
observations as the one made by the Investigating Officer are
to be found in the report of the Special Investigation Team
submitted to this Court. The facts gathered by the
Investigating Officer about the victim were part of the result of
the investigation. This Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of
India [(2007) 1 SCC 110] upon analysis of the relevant
provisions of the Code held that after completion of the
investigation if it appears to the Investigating Officer that there
is no sufficient evidence, he may decide to release the
suspected accused. If, it appears to him that there is
sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to place the accused
on trial, he has to take necessary steps under Section 170 of
the Code. In either case, on completion of the investigation he
has to submit a report to the Magistrate under Section 173 of
the Code in the prescribed form who is required to consider
the report judicially for taking appropriate action thereof. We
do not propose to deal with the options available in law to the
Magistrate and even to a victim or informant as the case may
be.
33. The sum and substance of the above deliberation
and analysis of the law cited leads us to an irresistible
conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field
exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in
that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate
into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict
compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code.
However, we may hasten to add that unfettered discretion
does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and
act according to ones own choice. The power to investigate
must be exercised strictly on the condition of which that power
is granted by the Code itself.
34. In our view, the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in
the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to
investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more
particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions
addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot be
converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in
motion. Neither the accused nor the complainant or informant
are entitled to choose their own investigating agency to
investigate a crime in which they may be interested.
35. It is altogether a different matter that the High
Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions
at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is
convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised
by an Investigating Officer mala fide. That power is to be
exercised in rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of
abuse of power and non-compliance with the provisions falling
under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring
the interference of the High Court. But even in such cases,
the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the
investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the
observance of process as provided for in the Code.
36 Even in cases where no action is taken by the police
on the information given to them, the informants remedy lies
under Sections 190, 200 Cr. P.C., but a Writ Petition in such a
case is not to be entertained. This Court in Gangadhar
Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. held:
When the information is laid with the police,
but no action in that behalf is taken, the
complainant is given power under Section 190
read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the
complaint before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence
and the Magistrate is required to enquire into
the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the
Code. In case the Magistrate after recording
evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of
issuing process to the accused, he is
empowered to direct the police concerned to
investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the
Code and to submit a report. If he finds that
the complaint does not disclose any offence to
take further action, he is empowered to dismiss
the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In
case he finds that the complaint/evidence
recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is
empowered to take cognizance of the offence
and would issue process to the accused. These
aspects have been highlighted by this Court in
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Employees Union (Regd.) V. Union of India . It
was specifically observed that a writ petition in
such cases is not to be entertained.
WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN
ENTERTAINING ANONYMOUS PETITION?
37. The second part of the anonymous letter relates to
allegations that: (a) in the past two years number of
unidentified dead bodies were found on the National Highway
and the railway track situated near to the Retreat Centre; (b)
there is a practice of burying the dead bodies in the public
burial ground without following any procedure; (c) recently the
dead body of a lady aged about 30 years was entrusted with
one Karyavelu for burying the dead body in the burial ground.
When the dead body was taken for burial, Karyavelu noticed
number of injuries on that dead body. He is alleged to have
informed the Priest of the Divine Centre that henceforth he will
not undertake any burial of such bodies. It is alleged that
Karyavelu himself died in the suspicious circumstances and a
case was registered under the caption unnatural death; (d)
there is a gang in the retreat centre and one Sr. Teresa and
two helpers were helping the gang to carry on anti-social
activities. It is alleged that the leader of the gang is Rev.
Father Mathew Thadathil. Sibi was his right hand person
who also died under the mysterious circumstances.
38. One of the documents enclosed to the anonymous
petition is a magazine by name Divine Voice published by the
appellant. In one of the volumes published in June, 2005 the
names of senior I.A.S and I.P.S officers were mentioned as the
members of the Advisory Board; one such named officer is
stated to have decided some matter in favour of the appellant.
The High Court in writ petition (c) No. 22543/05 made some
observations to the effect that the said officer was really
associated with the appellant centre, the order passed by that
officer in favour of the appellant is a nullity. Thereafter the
name of that officer was deleted from the names of persons of
the Advisory Board. Based on such vague and indefinite
allegations the High Court gave the following directions
without even issuing notice to the appellant:
(i) Government shall issue notification under
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
conferring power to the Special Investigation
Team constituted by the court to investigate
the offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act;
(ii) The Special Investigation Team shall also
inquire into the allegations of foreign exchange
violation;
(iii) The Special Investigation Team shall also
inquire into the allegations of unnatural
deaths stated in the petition.
39. The Special Investigation Team was entrusted with
power to investigate into any other cognizable offence in case
the Team gets information about the commission of any such
cognizable offence. The learned Judge accordingly issued
appropriate directions to the Government, the Director
General of Police and all other departments of the Government
to cooperate and render necessary assistance to the Special
Investigation Team.
40. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the
learned Judge, we find that the learned Judge initiated suo
motu proceedings without even examining as to whether the
contents of the anonymous letter and material sent along with
it disclosed any prima facie case for ordering an investigation.
The question is: can investigation be ordered by the High
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code based on such vague and indefinite allegations
made in unsigned petition without even arriving at any prima
facie conclusion that the contents thereof reveal commission of
any cognizable offence? Whether such directions could have
been issued by the High Court even in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
41. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
Services, U.P. and Ors. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr. ,
this Court took the view that a decision to direct an enquiry
against a person can only be done if the High Court after
considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that
such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an
investigation by an Investigating Agency, and the same cannot
be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party
makes some such allegations. This Court relying upon its
earlier decision in Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs.
Union of India & ors. held that a direction for
investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie,
found to have been committed or a persons involvement is
prima facie established, but a direction to investigate whether
any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally
given.
42. Just to point out that there is no prima facie finding
by the High Court while directing an investigation by the
impugned order, we would like to quote the following few
sentences:
7. As I have already stated there are various
other allegations leveled against the Retreat
Centre. One of the documents produced in a
magazine the front page of a publication by
name Divine Voice published by the Divine
Retreat Centre at Muringoor. It is captioned as
a spiritual congregation of the Government
Officials. In the 9th volume published in June
2005, the names of a Senior I.A.S. Officer and a
Senior I.P.S. Officer, were stated as the
members of the Advisory Board. It is seen that
a Writ Petition was filed against the Retreat
Centre by an orphanage as W.P.(C) No. 22543
of 2005 before this Court in which a specific
allegation of bias was raised against that I.A.S.
Officer. It was alleged that she was associated
with the running of the Divine Retreat Centre.
This Court held that if she is really associated
with the Retreat Centre, the order passed by
the appellate authority in that case is nullity.
Strangely enough from the next month onwards,
the name of that officer was deleted from the
list of names of persons in the Advisory Board.
But still the name of a Senior I.P.S. Officer is
stated as the member of the Advisory Board. It
is necessary to investigate the role of
Government Officials in the running of the
Centre and whether any of such public servants
have committed the offences punishable under
the provisions of the P.C. Act and take
appropriate action taken. Along with the
complaint a number of documents and three
CDs are enclosed. In the paper cuttings
appended in the petition, it is alleged that a
number of deaths took place under mysterious
circumstances in and around the Retreat
Centre. There is allegation of receipt of foreign
money without proper authority. It is also
necessary to enquire into the allegation that the
Centre is getting foreign aid in violation of
Foreign Exchange Law and take appropriate
action in accordance with law if any violation is
established. In view of the allegation that
Senior I.A.S. and I.P.S. Officers, are associated
with the functioning of the Retreat Centre, and
because of the allegations leveled against the
Investigating Officer, I am of the view that it is
only just and proper that the investigation of
Crime No. 381 of 2005 is taken away from the
present Investigation Officer which is entrusted
with a Senior Police Officer below the rank of
Inspector General of Police. It is also necessary
to see that the person who is appointed is
having some knowledge about the working of
the Retreat Centre.
10. The Special Investigation Team shall also
enquire into the allegation of unnatural deaths
stated in the petition. The team shall enquire
as to whether a person by name Karyavelu
worked in the burial ground and whether he
died under mysterious circumstances. In any
case was registered in connection with the
death of Karyavelu the present stage of that
investigation shall be verified and appropriate
action taken. The Team shall also enquire
whether there was a person by name Raju
attached to the Retreat Centre and whether he
died under suspicious circumstances. In case
the team gets information regarding any
cognizable offences, those matters shall also be
investigated in accordance with law.
From the above, we find that the High Court has merely
quoted certain allegations made against the appellant and
others and proceeded on the basis of those allegations made
in the anonymous petition without forming any prima facie
opinion with regard to those allegations.
43. It is evident from Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the
Code that even a police officer can act on the basis of
information received or otherwise and proceed to investigate
provided he has reason to suspect the commission of a
cognizable offence which he is empowered to investigate under
Section 156 Cr.P.C. If the essential requirements of the penal
provisions are not prima facie disclosed by a First Information
Report and the police officer has no reason to suspect the
commission of a cognizable offence, no investigation can be
undertaken by him based on the information received or
otherwise. Can the High Court set the law in motion against
the named and unnamed individuals based on the information
received by it without recording the reasons that the
information received by it prima facie disclosed the
commission of a cognizable offence. Setting Criminal Law in
motion is fraught with serious consequences, which cannot
lightly be undertaken by the High Court even in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
our view, the High Court in exercise of its whatsoever
jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a
Special Investigation Team on the strength of anonymous
petitions. The High Courts cannot be converted into Station
Houses.
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: WHETHER THE
APPELLANT HAS NO LOCUS?
44. The order directing the investigation on the basis of
such vague and indefinite allegations undoubtedly is in the
teeth of principles of natural justice. It was, however,
submitted that accused gets a right of hearing only after
submission of the charge-sheet, before a charge is framed or
the accused is discharged vide Sections 227 & 228 and 239
and 240 Cr.P.C. The appellant is not an accused and,
therefore, it was not entitled for any notice from the High
Court before passing of the impugned order. We are
concerned with the question as to whether the High Court
could have passed a judicial order directing investigation
against the appellant and its activities without providing an
opportunity of being heard to it. The case on hand is a case
where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion on the
basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition filed in
the High Court. No judicial order can ever be passed by any
court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and
particularly when such order results in drastic consequences
of affecting ones own reputation. In our view, the impugned
order of the High Court directing enquiry and investigation
into allegations in respect of which not even any
complaint/information has been lodged with the police is
violative of principles of natural justice.
45. It is unnecessary to go into the question as to
whether Divine Retreat Centre is not a person contemplated
by Article 21 of the Constitution and express any opinion as to
whether any right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
has been infringed. Suffice it to note that, the Director of the
appellant institution has been impleaded as a party
respondent in the criminal petition and the whole of the
allegations in the anonymous petition are leveled against the
appellant and in such a situation it was imperative for the
High Court to put the appellant on notice before passing the
impugned order.
The appellant undoubtedly is aggrieved by the
impugned order and, therefore, entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India. The decisions in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary
(supra) and Union of India & Anr. Vs.W.N. Chadha laying
down the law that hearing to the accused is provided by the
Code under specified circumstances are not relevant to decide
the issue of locus in cases where challenge is to a judicial
order under which institutions and/or persons connected
therewith are subjected to inquiry and investigation.
46. Here is a case where no information has been given
to the police by any informant alleging commission of any
cognizable offence by the appellant and the persons associated
with the appellant institution. It is a peculiar case of its own
kind where an anonymous petition is sent directly in the name
of a learned judge of the Kerala High Court, which was suo
motu taken up as a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code.
The High Court ought not to have entertained such a petition
for taking the same on file under Section 482 of the Code.
47. It was contended that nomenclature of the petition
is not decisive. The High Court can exercise power suo motu
either under Article 226 or under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or
under both. It was submitted that if for any reason the
petition entertained by the High Court is held not
maintainable under Section 482 of the Code, the same can
always be treated as the one filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Reliance was placed upon the
observations made by this Court in Pepsi Foods Vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate . The decision in Pepsi Foods
(supra) is an authority for the proposition that nomenclature
under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does
not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which
otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure
prescribed which procedure is mandatory. This Court took
the view that if the court finds that the appellant could not
invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court can
certainly treat the petition as one under Article 227 or Section
482 of the Code. The observations were made in the context of
correcting grave errors that might be committed by the
subordinate courts. The decision does not lay down any law
that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482
of the Code or Article 227 may be resorted to constitute any
special Investigating Agency to investigate into allegations
made for the first time in an anonymous petition.
48. In our view, the whole of public law remedies
available under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and the constituent power to issue writs in
the natu
49. pp
50. pre of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and co-
warranto are neither echoed nor transplanted
into Section 482. May be both the powers to
issue writs and pass appropriate orders under
Section 482 of the Code are conferred upon the
High Court but they undoubtedly operate in
different fields.
WHETHER THE ANONYMOUS PETITION IS TO BE
TREATED AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ?
49. The question that falls for our consideration is
whether the anonymous letter sent in the name of a Judge can
be entertained as Public Interest Litigation? It is well settled
that a public interest litigation can be entertained by the
Constitutional Courts only at the instance of a bona fide
litigant. The author of the letter in this case is anonymous,
there is no way to verify his bonafides and in fact no effort was
made by the Court to verify about the authenticity, truth or
otherwise of the contents of the petition. It is not the case of
the appellant that no Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be entertained on the strength of a
letter addressed by a bona fide litigant to the High Court. This
Court in Sunil Batra (II) Vs. Delhi Administration has
accepted a letter written to the Supreme Court by one Sunil
Batra, a prisoner from Tihar Jail, Delhi complaining of
inhuman torture in the jail. In Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) Vs.
State of U.P. , this Court entertained letter sent by the two
Professors of Delhi University seeking enforcement of the
constitutional right of the inmates in a Protective Home, at
Agra who were living in inhuman and degrading conditions. In
Miss Veena Sethi V. State of Bihar , this Court treated
letter addressed to a Judge of this Court by the Free Legal Aid
Committee at Hazaribagh, Bihar as a writ petition. In
Citizens for Democracy through its President Vs. State of
Assam & ors. upon which reliance has been placed by Shri
P.P. Rao, this Court entertained a letter addressed by Shri
Kuldip Nayar, an eminent journalist, in his capacity as
President of Citizens for Democracy to one of the judges of
this Court complaining of human rights violations of TADA
detenues and the same was treated as a petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of the India. But in none of these
cases, the Court entertained anonymous petition and
converted the same into a Public Interest Litigation. We do not
propose to burden this judgment with various authoritative
pronouncements of this Court laying down the parameters of
Public Interest Litigation. Suffice it to recapitulate that this
Court uniformly and consistently held that the individual who
moves the court for judicial redress in cases of Public Interest
Litigation must be acting bone fide with a view to vindicating
the cause of justice and not for any personal gain or private
profit or of the political motivation or other oblique
consideration. The Court should not allow itself to be
activised at the instance of such person and must reject his
application at the threshold, whether it be in the form of a
letter addressed to the court or even in the form of a regular
petition filed in Court. In S.P. Gupta & ors. Vs. President of
India & ors. , this Court in clear and unequivocal terms
observed that it would be prudent for the constitutional courts
to confine this strategic exercise of jurisdiction to cases where
legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a determinate class or
group of persons or the constitutional or legal right of such
determinate class or group of persons is violated and as far as
possible, not entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at
the instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal-
aid organization which can take care of such cases.
50. The law in this regard is summarized in Janata
Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary thus:
It is thus clear that only a person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi
and can approach the Court to wipe out the
tears of the poor and needy, suffering from
violation of their fundamental rights, but not a
person for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration.
Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour
of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating
any personal grievance, deserves rejection at
the threshold.
51. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors. this Court observed:
The attractive brand name of public interest
litigation should not be used for suspicious
products of mischief. It should be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public
injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded
on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court
must be careful to see that a body of persons or
member of the public, who approaches the court
is
acting bona fide and not for personal gain or
private motive or political motivation or other
oblique considerations. The Court must not
allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations by masked phantoms who
monitor at times from behind. Some persons
with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by force of
habit or from improper motives, and try to
bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich
themselves. Often they are actuated by a
desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The
petitions of such busybodies deserve to be
thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in
appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
52. In State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. Sampat Lal &
Ors. , this Court administered a caution stating when
communications complaining of violation of rights of the
deprived and vulnerable sections of the community are sent to
the court, care and caution should be adopted to ensure that
the process of the court is not abused or misused. The Court
should be prima facie satisfied that the information laid before
it is of such a nature that it calls for examination and this
prima facie satisfaction may be derived from the credentials of
the informant, namely, what is the character or standing of
the informant or from the nature of the information given by
him, namely, whether it is vague and indefinite or contains
specific allegations as a result of survey or investigation or
from the gravity or seriousness of the complaint set out in the
information or from any other circumstance or circumstances
appearing from the communication addressed to the court or
to a Judge of the court on behalf of the court.
53. How to verify the credentials, character or standing
of the informant who does not disclose his identity? In the
instant case, there is no whisper in the order passed by the
High Court about any attempts made to verify the credentials,
character or standing of the informant. Obviously, the High
Court could not have verified the same since the petition
received by it is an unsigned one.
54. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India &
ors. (supra), this Court visualized grave danger inherent in a
practice where a mere letter is entertained as a petition from a
person whose antecedents and status are unknown or so
uncertain that no sense of responsibility can, without
anything more, be attributed to the communication. It has
been observed that the document petitioning the court for
relief should be supported by satisfactory verification. This
requirement is all the greater where petitions are received by
the Court through the post. It is never beyond the bound of
possibility that an unverified communication received through
the post by the Court may in fact have been employed mala
fide, as an instrument of coercion or blackmail or other
oblique motive against a person named therein who holds a
position of honour and respect in society. The Court must be
ever vigilant against the abuse of its process. It cannot do that
better in the matter than insisting at the earliest stage, and
before issuing notice to the respondent, that an appropriate
verification of the allegations be supplied.
55. In our view, the Public Interest Litigant must
disclose his identity so as to enable the court to decide that
the informant is not a wayfarer or officious intervener without
any interest or concern.
56. In such view of the matter the suo motu action
initiated cannot be treated as the one in public interest
litigation.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ROSTER:
57. It is clear from the record that the learned Judge
was not dealing with any public interest litigation cases as on
the date of entertaining anonymous petition. It is beyond
pale of any doubt and controversy that the administrative
control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High
Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of
the High Court both judicial and administrative; that the Chief
justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the
prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate
cases to the benches so constituted; and the puisne judges
can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief
Justice or under his directions; that the puisne judges cannot
pick and choose any case pending in the High Court and
assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without
appropriate orders of the Chief Justice. (See State of
Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand & Ors. )
58. This Court in more than one case expressed its
reservation about individual judges entertaining the
communications and petitions addressed to them to pass
orders on judicial side. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union
of India & ors. , the Court in clear and unequivocal terms
declared that communications and petitions addressed to a
particular judge are improper and violate the institutional
personality of the court. They also embarrass the Judge to
whom they are personally addressed. The fundamental
conception of the Court must be respected, that it is a single
indivisible institution, of united purpose and existing solely for
the high constitutional functions for which it has been
created. The conception of the Court as a loose aggregate of
individual Judges, to one or more of whom judicial access may
be particularly had, undermines its very existence and
endangers its proper and effective functioning.
59. In our view, the learned judge ought not to have
entertained the anonymous petition, contents of which remain
unverified and made it basis for setting the law in motion as
against the appellant as he was not entrusted with the judicial
duty of disposing of PIL matters.
60. Institutions own reputation is a priceless treasure.
History teaches us that the independence of the judiciary is
jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of
the day and assume primary responsibility to resolve the
issues which are otherwise not entrusted to it by adopting
procedures which are otherwise not known.
61. There is heavy duty cast upon the constitutional
courts to protect themselves from the onslaught unleashed by
unscrupulous litigants masquerading as Public Interest
Litigants. The individual judges ought not to entertain
communications and letters personally addressed to them and
initiate action on the judicial side based on such
communication so as to avoid embarrassment; that all
communications and petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the
court must be addressed to the entire Court, that is to say, the
Chief Justice and his companion Judges. The individual
letters, if any, addressed to a particular judge are required to
be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration as to the
proposed action on such petitions. Each Judge cannot decide
for himself as to what communication should be entertained
for setting the law in motion be it in PIL or in any jurisdiction.
62. It is needless to say that none of these aspects have
been taken into consideration by the High Court before setting
the criminal law in motion as against the appellant. The
sweeping directions issued by the Court are in the nature of
ordering an inquisition against the appellant and the persons
connected with it to find out as to whether they have
committed any cognizable offence. Such a course is
impermissible in law.
63. For the aforesaid reasons, directions issued by the
High Court constituting the Special Investigation Team to
investigate into the allegations made in anonymous petition
are set aside.
RELIEF
64. However, the fact remains that the Circle Inspector of
Police, Chalakuddy having registered Crime No. 381 of 2005
made investigation in exercise of statutory power coupled with
duty under the orders of learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Chalakuddy. The learned Judge having
entertained the petition/complaint from the victim ordered
further investigation into the crime by the Special
Investigation Team headed by the third respondent. The third
respondent having completed the investigation arrived at
certain conclusions but unnecessarily kept the matter
pending on the ground that the paternity of the first child is
to be verified with the accused and some other persons who
were also found closely associated with the victim during the
relevant period. This is beyond ones imagination as to how
and why such an inquiry is required to be made. The First
Information Report, material gathered during the
investigation, contents of the victims complaint and
conclusions drawn by the Special Investigation Team
themselves do not justify any such further enquiry.
65. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the
third respondent to make available the material gathered
during the course of investigation in Crime No. 381 of 2005
to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chalakuddy (Investigating
Officer) within two weeks from the date of the receipt of copy
of this order. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer shall
submit appropriate report in accordance with the provisions of
the Code within four weeks before the Magistrate who shall
consider the report to be so filed judicially in accordance with
law.
66. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case.
67. Subject to the above directions the impugned order
of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is accordingly
allowed.
68. Since the question is one of general importance, we
would direct the copies of this judgment should be sent to the
High Courts in all the States.