CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 942 of 1995 PETITIONER: DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. RESPONDENT: NIYAMAVEDI REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER K. NANDINI, ADVOCATE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/1995 BENCH: A.M. AHMADI, CJ & K.S. PARIPOORNAN & SUJATA V. MANOHAR JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1995 (3) SCR 196
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Investigation regarding Crime Nos. 225/94 and
246/94 of Police Station Vanchiyoor, Distt. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
State in what has come to be known as the ISRO Espionage Case, were
initially carried out by the State Police. On 3rd of December, 1994, at the
request of the State of Kerala, investigation was entrusted to the Central
Bureau of Investigation by the Government of India. Consequently, cases RC
10(S)/94 and RC and RC 11(S)/94 were registered in SIC.II Branch of the
Central Bureau of Investigation. On completion of investigation in RC 10(S)
/94, a chargesheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ernakulam, Kerala on 17th of December, 1994. Investigation of case RC 11(S)
/94 is continuing.
After the entrustment of the investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation on 3rd of December, 1994, and while the investigation was in
progress, O.P. No. 17367 of 1994 was filed on 13.12.1994 in the High Court
of Kerala by an organisation called ‘Niyamavedi’ being public interest
litigation, praying that the first respondent, Raman Srivastava, I.P.S.,
Inspector General of Police, Southern Zone, Kerala State, Trivandrum, be
arrested by the Director, C.B.I., New Delhi for his alleged involvement in
the said case and for a direction to the State of Kerala to suspend and
remove the first respondent from service. A learned Single Judge of the
High Court dismissed the petition with the observation that the power of
interference of the Court in the subject in hand at that stage was very
limited. He also recorded that statement of the State Government to the
effect that the Government had no interest in unduly defending or shielding
any officer and that the Government would proceed in the matter only when
report from the C.B.I., which is investigating in the case, is received.
In appeal, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, after a detailed
judgment, rightly dismissed the appeal holding that no court has power to
direct the investigating officer to include a person as an accused in the
case while the investigation is in progress. The petitioners before us, who
are the Director, C.B.I., Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Director, Research and Analysis Wing and Director, Central Intelligence
Bureau, however, have come before us asking for special leave to appeal
from the appellate order of the Kerala High Court in view of certain
observations which have been made by the Division Bench in the course of
its order dismissing the appeal.
The petitioners had, as directed by the Division Bench, produced for
perusal of the Court case diaries of the Kerala State Police as well as of
the C.B.I. relating to the investigations carried out in respect of the
said crimes including the statements recorded in the course of
investigation and certain video cassettes in that connection. These were
perused by the Division Bench in chambers. However, a reference at some
length has been made in the course of the judgment to the material
disclosed in the course of investigation, presumably, in order to examine
the contention relating to the alleged involvement of the first respondent
in the crimes in question. Clearly, under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, only a very limited use can be made of the statements to the police
and police diaries, even in the course of the trial, as set out in sections
162 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Division Bench,
therefore, should have refrained from disclosing in its order, material
contained in these diaries and statements, especially when the
investigation in the very case was in progress. It should also have
refrained from making any comments on the manner in which investigation was
being conducted by the C.B.I. looking to the fact that the investigation
was far from complete. Any observations which may amount to interference in
the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain
from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may
derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation. Of late, the
tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and courts
should be wary of its possible consequences. We say no more. However, we
clarify that certain directions given to the Director of C.B.I. in regard
to the investigation matters do not meet with our approval and may be
ignored. In short the adverse comments against the C.B.I. were, to say the
least, premature and could have been avoided. Ignoring the innuendoes the
Court was, however, right in expressing a general view that the
investigating agency is expected to act in an efficient and vigilant manner
without being pressurised and in dismissing the appeal.
No purpose would, therefore, be served by granting the present petition.
With these observations, the special leave petition is accordingly disposed
of.