{"id":138142,"date":"2006-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006"},"modified":"2015-05-08T00:27:31","modified_gmt":"2015-05-07T18:57:31","slug":"m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n
Bench: S. H. Kapadia, D. K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (civil)  13381 of 1984\n\nPETITIONER:\nM.C. Mehta\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS. H. Kapadia & D. K. Jain\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nI. A. No. 431 IN
\nWrit Petition (Civil) No. 13381 of 1984
\nwith
\n I.A. No. 451,   I.A. Nos. 438, 439, 442-443, 445 and 447
\n in I.A. No. 431,  I.A. No. 440 and  I.A. No. 441 in I.A. No. 440.\n<\/p>\n
KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tDelay condoned in I.A. No. 443 in I.A. No. 431 in W.P. (C) No.
\n13381\/84.\n<\/p>\n
\tA purported vertical difference of opinion in the administrative
\nhierarchy in CBI between the team of investigating officers and the law
\nofficers on one hand and Director of Prosecution on the other hand on the
\nquestion as to whether there exists adequate evidence for judicial scrutiny in
\nthe case of criminal misconduct concerning Taj Heritage Corridor Project
\ninvolving 12 accused including former Chief Minister has resulted in the
\nlegal stalemate which warrants interpretation of Section 173(2) Cr. PC.
\nBACKGROUND FACTS:\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 25.3.2003, the Uttar Pradesh Government started a project known
\nas Taj Heritage Corridor Project (hereinafter referred to as “the project”) to
\ndivert the Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres between Agra Fort and the Taj
\nand use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and
\namusement activities in terms of development of Heritage Corridor for Taj
\nTrapezium Zone (hereinafter referred to as the “TTZ”) at Agra. This led to
\nthe filing of an I.A. No. 387 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13381\/84 pending in
\nthis Court. Vide Order dated 16.7.2003 this Court observed that, it was
\npainful that the concerned persons in power are trying to damage or
\nendanger the World Heritage by their hasty\/ irregular\/ illegal activities. By
\nthe said order, this Court directed a detailed inquiry as to who cleared the
\nproject, for what purpose it was cleared, and why it was cleared without the
\nsanction of the competent authority. This Court also inquired as to whether
\ntheir exists any illegality or irregularity and, if so, this Court called for the
\nnames of the concerned officers\/ persons. Accordingly by the said order, a
\nCBI inquiry was ordered. A report on the preliminary inquiry was called for
\nfrom CBI within four weeks.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy Order dated 21.8.2003 in I.A. No. 376 in Writ Petition (C) No.
\n13381\/84 this Court ordered CBI to verify from the assets of  the  officers\/
\npersons as to whether there was any flow of funds into their accounts from
\nthe state exchequer. This order was passed on the basis of the confidential
\nreport submitted by CBI to this Court under which it was reported that a sum
\nof Rs. 17 crores were released from the state exchequer without proper
\nsanction of the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy Order dated 18.9.2003 in I.A. No. 376 in Writ Petition (C) No.
\n13381\/84 this Court after reciting the above facts noted the contents of the
\nreport submitted by CBI on 11.9.2003, which report recorded the following
\nconclusions:\n<\/p>\n
“15. \tAn amount of Rs. 17 crores was unauthorisedly
\nreleased by Shri R.K. Sharma, Secretary,
\nEnvironment, U.P. without the approval of the
\ndepartmental Minister. (Ref. Para 3.1.E.4 page 64
\nand para 3.1.E.31, page 81)\n<\/p>\n
16.   Contrary to the provisions existing in the State
\nGovernment which require that in case of every
\nnon-recurring expenditure of Rs. 5 crores and
\nabove, approval of the Expenditure Finance
\nCommittee (EFC) of the State Government is
\nrequired, no such approval was either sought or
\nobtained before sanctioning the amount of Rs. 17
\ncrores (Ref. Para 3.1.E.11, page 67).\n<\/p>\n
17.    An amount of Rs. 20 crores was sanctioned by Shri
\nNaseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister of
\nEnvironment, U.P. for release without approval of
\nDPRs and techno-feasibility reports and without
\nclearance of the Expenditure Finance Committee
\n(EFC) of the State Government and CCEA,
\nGovernment of India (Ref. Para 3.1.E.39, page 86).\n<\/p>\n
18.    Shri Siddiqui subsequently tampered with the file
\nand made interpolations in the Government records
\nwith an objective to cover up the fact that he had
\nsanctioned Rs. 20 crores on 21\/05\/2003. (Ref. Para
\n3.1.E.40 (1 and 2) page 87).\n<\/p>\n
19.  Shri Siddiqui and Dr. V.K. Gupta, the present
\nSecretary, Environment, U.P. pressurized Shri
\nRajendra, Prasad, Under Secretary, Environment
\nDepartment, U.P. who also tampered with the file
\nand made interpolations to cover the fact that the
\nMinister had sanctioned Rs. 20 crores. (Ref. Para
\n3.1.E.37, page 86).\n<\/p>\n
20.   Shri K.C. Mishra, Secretary, Environment and
\nForest Government of India tampered with the file
\nand made interpolations in Government records in
\norder to cover up his omissions of not approving
\nthe proposals of his Joint Secretary and Special
\nSecretary for writing to the State Government for a
\nreport and to ask them to carry out work only after
\nnecessary approvals and clearances. He obscured
\nsome portions of the notes dated 21\/10\/2002 and
\n08\/05\/2003 of Dr. Saroj, Additional Director,
\nMinistry of Environment and Forest so as to show
\nthat he was not a part of the decision making and
\nhad not shown his consent to the proposed project.\n<\/p>\n
(Ref. Para 3.1.E.42 page 89).\n<\/p>\n
21.   Central Forensic Science Laboratory has given a
\nreport that interpolations were made in the files by
\nShri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister,
\nU.P., Shri Rajendra Prasad, Under Secretary, U.P.
\nand Shri K.C. Misra, Secretary, Environment and
\nForests, Government of India (Ref. Para 3.1.G.21,
\npages 106-107 and 3.1.E.44 (5-6), page 90).”\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly, this Court inter alia directed CBI to register an  FIR and
\nmake further investigation in accordance with law. By the said order, CBI
\nwas also directed to take appropriate steps for holding investigations against
\nthe former Chief Minister, Ms. Mayawati, and Mr. Nasimuddin Siddiqui,
\nformer Minister for Environment, U.P.. CBI was also directed to make
\ninvestigations against other officers mentioned hereinabove. By the said
\norder the Income Tax department was also directed to cooperate with CBI in
\nfurther investigation. By the said order, CBI was directed to take into
\nconsideration the provisions of the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act,
\n1988 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy order dated 19.7.2004 in I.A. No. 376 etc. in Writ Petition (C) No.
\n13381\/84 this Court directed CBI to furnish a self-contained note in respect
\nof its findings against the officers of the State Government\/ Central
\nGovernment. CBI was given eight weeks time to complete the investigation
\nin respect of FIR No. RC.18 and three months time was granted to complete
\nthe investigation in respect of FIR No. RC.19.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy Order dated 25.10.2004 in I.A. No. 376 etc. in Writ Petition (C)
\nNo. 13381\/84 this Court noted that two disciplinary enquiries were required
\nto be instituted by the State Government against Shri Punia, former Principal
\nSecretary to C.M., U.P.. This was because CBI had submitted two distinct
\nnotes. On 25.10.2004 the departmental enquiry on CBI note I stood
\ncompleted. However, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P.
\nsubmitted that in the absence of CBI furnishing to the disciplinary authority
\nthe statement of the former Chief Minister, the second disciplinary
\nproceeding could not be initiated by the State against Shri Punia. This aspect
\nis important. The case of Shri Punia was that he had acted under oral
\ninstructions of the former Chief Minister. This was required to be enquired
\ninto by the departmental enquiry, therefore, the State requested CBI to
\nfurnish the statement of the former Chief Minister which CBI had collected
\nduring investigation under RC.18. At that stage, time was sought by the CBI
\non the ground that investigation into RC.18 was nearing completion and that
\nCBI was awaiting legal scrutiny of the matter. Therefore, this Court
\nadjourned the matter stating that the second disciplinary enquiry against Shri
\nPunia arising out of CBI note II stands deferred until availability of the
\nstatement of the former Chief Minister of the State. That statement was
\nordered to be given to the State Government within three weeks. It was
\nfurther ordered that, if within three weeks CBI failed to make available the
\nsaid statement then the State Government will proceed with the initiation of
\ndisciplinary enquiry against Shri Punia on the basis of the material available.
\nAccordingly, this Court adjourned the matter stating that after legal scrutiny
\nthe report shall be submitted before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the meantime, CBI submitted its report with detailed Annexures
\nrunning into hundreds of pages.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy order dated 14.3.2005 in I.A. No. 431 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
\n13381\/84, since the report of CBI was voluminous, this Court after going
\nthrough the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
\n(hereinafter referred to as the “CVC Act”) directed the records relating to
\nprosecution of twelve accused be placed before the Central Vigilance
\nCommission (hereinafter referred to as the “CVC”) for scrutiny and
\nrecommendation. CVC was added as a party. Basically this Court wanted
\nCVC to analyse the Report of CBI and give to the Court the summary of
\nrecommendations of various officers in the administrative hierarchy of CBI
\nas the Court was informed that there was divergence of opinion between
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo complete the chronology of orders passed by this Court, we may
\npoint out that the Director, CBI submitted his Status Report as on
\n31.12.2004 to this Court in which he stated as follows:
\n“5.  \tAs regards investigation of RC0062003A0018, it
\nis submitted that as there was difference of opinion
\nbetween the officers of CBI in relation to the implication
\nof individuals in the case, the matter was referred to the
\nlearned Attorney General of India through the Ministry
\nof Law for obtaining his esteemed opinion in this case.
\nThe learned Attorney General has since given his
\nconsidered opinion that in absence of any evidence to
\nsuggest criminal mens rea on the part of any individual
\nand due to lack of evidence of any pecuniary benefit to
\nany of the officers or any other person, the proper course
\nof action would be to take disciplinary action against the
\nofficers for their omission and misconduct. I have gone
\nthrough the report of investigation, comments of various
\nofficers including the opinion of the Learned Attorney
\nGeneral and I am of the opinion that the evidence is not
\nsufficient to launch prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAs disciplinary action has already been initiated by
\nthe authorities concerned on the direction of Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court, action will be taken by filing a closure
\nreport under section 173 Cr. PC in the competent court
\nincorporating all the facts\/ circumstances revealed during
\nthe course of investigation.”\n<\/p>\n
CONTENTIONS:\n<\/p>\n
Shri Krishan Mahajan, learned amicus curiae would submit that in the
\ninstant case, at the present stage, the question is of investigation and not of
\nprosecution. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC), investigation
\nconsists of :  site inspection, ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case, discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, collection of
\nevidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of the
\nexamination of various persons, the search and seizure and, lastly, formation
\nof opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the
\naccused before a Magistrate for trial, and if so, taking the necessary steps for
\nthe same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. PC.  Learned
\ncounsel submitted that the final step in the investigation, namely, formation
\nof the opinion is to be of the officer in charge of the police station. This
\nauthority cannot be delegated although a provision entitling superior officers
\nto supervise or participate is there under Sections 158 and 173(3) Cr. PC.
\nLearned Counsel urged that the officer in charge of the police station or the
\ninvestigating officer is the sole person who has to form the opinion under
\nSection 173 Cr. PC and file the police report. In this connection, learned
\ncounsel pointed out that in this case Shri D.C. Dwivedi, Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Lucknow was the
\nI.O.. He had filed the F.I.R. with thirteen sheets attached to it, registering a
\nregular case after series of preliminary reports submitted to this Court in I.A.
\nNos. 376\/03 and 431\/05 filed by the amicus curiae. This case was assigned
\nto the I.O. by Shri K. N. Tiwari, Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti
\nCorruption Bureau, Lucknow. According to the learned counsel, the
\nfunctions of the magistracy and the police are entirely different and though
\nin the circumstances of a given case the Magistrate may or may not accept
\nthe report, he cannot infringe upon the jurisdiction of the police by
\ncompelling the police to change its opinion. Learned counsel submits that a
\nfield of activity reserved for the police and the executive has been expressly
\ncarved out under the Cr. PC.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel further submitted that, the I.O. works under the entire
\nCBI hierarchy; that the S.P. works under his supervisory officer of DIG rank
\nin terms of the CBI (Crime) Manual-2005 (hereinafter referred to as the
\n“Manual”). But this entire administrative structure of the CBI has to function
\naccording to the provisions of the Cr.PC in the matter of investigation, in the
\nmatter of filing the charge-sheet\/ final report under Section 173(2) and the
\nsuperior officers of CBI cannot substitute the opinion of the S.P. if that
\nopinion states that a case on the material gathered during the investigation
\nhas been made out. Similarly, if the S.P. opines on the basis of the material
\ncollected that no case is made out, such an opinion cannot be substituted by
\nthe higher hierarchy of the officers in CBI. In this connection, it is pointed
\nout that, in the present case, the FIR registered is for offences under Section
\n120B r\/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as also under Section 13(2) r\/w
\nSection 13(i)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. It was urged that there are no separate
\nprovisions in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or the P.C.
\nAct, 1988 as to the manner or the steps to be taken in the investigation of
\nsuch offences and, therefore, though the investigation is conducted by the
\nCBI, the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC would equally apply to
\nsuch investigation. Learned counsel submitted that the position of the entire
\nhierarchy of CBI in the matter of filing of police report by the S.P. and
\nformation of the opinion by the S.P. on the basis of the evidence collected
\nduring the investigation is to be seen in the context of fair and impartial
\ninvestigation. He is the Officer-in-charge of the police station. Learned
\ncounsel, therefore, submitted that in a Supreme Court monitored
\ninvestigation the S.P. has to file his report before the Supreme Court only
\nand not before the entire hierarchy of CBI whose only role is to supervise
\ninvestigation. This hierarchy of CBI, according to the learned counsel,
\ncannot make the S.P. to change his opinion. They cannot substitute the
\nopinion of the S.P. with their own opinion. Learned counsel further contend
\nthat, in a Supreme Court monitored investigation even where the report of
\nthe S.P. is a closure report and the Director, CBI and Attorney General agree
\nwith the opinion of the S. P., still it is the duty of the CBI to place the entire
\nmaterial before the Supreme Court and it is for the Court to examine and be
\nsatisfied that the authorities have reasonably come to such conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
It was next urged that the Director of Prosecution in the CBI has no
\nrole to play at the stage of investigation which includes formation of an
\nopinion by the S.P.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Rao, learned senior counsel on behalf of the CVC submitted that
\npursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court dated 14.3.2005 CVC had
\nexamined the records of CBI made available to it. The CVC had also called
\nfor further information from CBI. After vetting the entire record, CVC had
\nsubmitted its report to this Court on 9.5.2005. Learned counsel submitted
\nthat under Section 8(1)(a) of the CVC Act, the CVC is empowered to
\nexercise superintendence over the functioning of CBI insofar as it relates to
\nthe investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the P.C.
\nAct, 1988 and, therefore, when the CBI investigates under the P.C. Act,
\n1988  against public servants serving in connection with affairs of a State
\nGovernment, such investigation is subject to the superintendence of  CVC.
\nThis submission was made on behalf of CVC because it was argued on
\nbehalf of some of the accused that CVC had no power of superintendence of
\ncases involving public servants employed in connection with affairs of the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for CVC submitted that in order to fulfill the
\nresponsibility of exercising superintendence over the functioning of CBI
\ninsofar as it relates to investigations of offences under the P.C. Act, 1988,
\nthe CVC is entitled to scrutinize investigation reports of the CBI at any stage
\nbefore filing of charge-sheets\/ closure reports. For this purpose, CVC is
\nempowered to issue suitable advice in cases under investigation. Such
\nadvice, according to the learned counsel, is in the nature of an opinion, and
\nnot a binding direction.\n<\/p>\n
On the facts of the case, learned counsel for CVC urged that, in the
\npresent case the preliminary inquiry as well as the investigation were
\nconducted by the CBI against the former Chief Minister, officers of the State
\nGovernment and others under the direction of this Court. It was the Supreme
\nCourt which had referred the matter to CVC and, therefore, the CVC was
\nbound to submit its report. In the circumstances, learned counsel submitted
\nthat, it cannot be said that the report of the CVC is vitiated by any illegality
\nor irregularity since the Supreme Court has absolute power under Article
\n142 of the Constitution to pass any order as is necessary for doing complete
\njustice in any cause or matter pending before it.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nformer Chief Minister submitted that this Court should be loathe to interfere
\nin investigation since it is a field of activity reserved for the police and the
\nexecutive. He submitted that, in the present case, we are still at the stage of
\ninvestigation and unless an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power is
\nmade out, no interference is called for under Article 32 of the Constitution.
\nLearned counsel further submitted that, in the present case, CVC had no role
\nto play, particularly since the case pertains to conduct of the officers who are
\nthe employees of the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that
\npublic servants serving in connection with affairs of the State Government
\nfell outside the powers of CVC. Learned counsel submitted that, in any
\nevent, CVC had no power to direct the manner in which CBI will conclude
\nthe proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the opinion as to whether
\nthe case is made out for judicial scrutiny or not has to be the decision of CBI
\nand unless there is gross abuse of power this Court should not intervene in
\nthe field of investigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. Learned
\ncounsel urged that, in the present case, there is no such gross abuse of power
\nmade out, and, therefore, this Court should not interfere under Article 32 of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
ISSUE:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe key issue which arises for determination in this case is: whether
\non the facts and the circumstance of this case, the Director, CBI, who has not
\ngiven his own independent opinion, was right in referring the matter for
\nopinion to the Attorney General of India, particularly when the entire
\ninvestigation and law officers’ team was ad idem in its opinion on filing of
\nthe charge-sheet and only on the dissenting opinion of the Director of
\nProsecution, whose opinion is also based on the interpretation of the legal
\nevidence, which stage has not even arrived. The opinion of the Director, CBI
\nis based solely on the opinion of the Attorney General after the reference.\n<\/p>\n
CASE LAW ON THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE
\nHIERARCHY IN CBI IN SUPREME COURT MONITORED CASES:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of  H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh  v.  The State of
\nDelhi<\/a>  this Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides not
\nmerely for judicial enquiry into or trial of alleged offences but also for prior
\ninvestigation thereof. Section 5 of the Code shows that all offences shall be
\ninvestigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with in accordance with
\nthe Code. When information of the commission of cognizable offence is
\nreceived, the appropriate police officer has the authority to enter on the
\ninvestigation of the same. Thus, investigation is a normal preliminary for an
\naccused being put up for trial for a cognizable offence. Investigation usually
\nstarts on information relating to the commission of an offence given to an
\nofficer in charge of a police station and recorded under Section 154 of the
\nCode. If from information so received or otherwise, the officer in charge of
\nthe police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, he or
\nhis subordinate has to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, and if necessary to take measures for the
\ndiscovery and arrest of the offender. Under Section 155 the officer in charge
\nof a police station has the power of making a search in any place for the
\nseizure of anything believed to be necessary for the purpose of investigation.
\nA subordinate officer may be deputed by him for that purpose.  The
\ninvestigating officer has also the power to arrest the person under Section 54
\nof the Code. It is important to notice that where the investigation is
\nconducted not by the officer in charge of the police station but by a
\nsubordinate officer such subordinate officer has to report the result of the
\ninvestigation to the officer in charge of the police station. If, upon the
\ncompletion of the investigation it appears to the officer in charge of the
\npolice station that there is no sufficient evidence, he may decide to release
\nthe suspected accused. If, it appears to him that there is sufficient evidence
\nor reasonable ground to place the accused on trial, he has to take necessary
\nsteps under Section 170 of the Code. In either case, on completion of the
\ninvestigation he has to submit a report to the Magistrate under Section 173
\nof the Code in the prescribed form. Thus, under the Code, investigation
\nconsists of proceeding to the spot, ascertainment of the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, discovery  and arrest of the suspected offender,
\ncollection of evidence and formation of the opinion as to whether on the
\nmaterial collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for
\ntrial, and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a
\ncharge-sheet under Section 173. The scheme of the Code shows that while it
\nis permissible for an officer in charge of a police station to depute some
\nsubordinate officer to conduct some of these steps in the investigation, the
\nresponsibility for each one of the above steps is that of the officer in charge
\nof the police station (see Section 168 of the Code). This Court had
\ncategorically stated in the above judgment that, the final step in the
\ninvestigation, namely, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there
\nis a case to place the accused on trial is to be of the officer in charge of the
\npolice station and this function cannot be delegated. This Court
\nunequivocally observed that, there is no provision for delegation of the
\nabove function regarding formation of the opinion but only a provision
\nentitling the superior officers to supervise or participate under Section 551
\n(corresponding to Section 36 of the present Code). This Court further held
\nthat, a police report which results from an investigation as provided for in
\nSection 190 of the Code is the material on which cognizance is taken. But
\nfrom that it cannot be said that a valid and legal police report is the
\nfoundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors.   v.  Dinesh Mishra<\/a>   this
\nCourt held that when a cognizable offence is reported to the police they may
\nafter investigation take action under Section 169 or Section 170 Cr. PC. If
\nthe police thinks that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused, they
\nmay, under Section 169 release the accused from custody or, if the police
\nthinks that there is sufficient evidence, they may, under Section 170, forward
\nthe accused to a competent Magistrate. In either case the police has to
\nsubmit a report of the action taken, under Section 173, to the competent
\nMagistrate who considers it judicially under Section 190 and takes the
\nfollowing action:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tIf the report is a charge-sheet under Section 170, it is
\nopen to the Magistrate to agree with it and take
\ncognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b); or
\ndecline to take cognizance. But he cannot call upon
\nthe police to submit a report that the accused need
\nnot be proceeded against on the ground that there was
\nno sufficient evidence.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tIf the report is of the action taken under Section 169,
\nthen the Magistrate may agree with the report and
\nclose the proceedings. If he disagrees with the report,
\nhe can give directions to the police under Section
\n156(3) to make a further investigation. If the police,
\nafter further investigation submits a charge-sheet, the
\nMagistrate may follow the procedure where the
\ncharge-sheet under Section 170 is filed; but if the
\npolice are still of the opinion that there was no
\nsufficient evidence against the accused, the
\nMagistrate may or may not agree with it. Where he
\nagrees, the case against the accused is closed. Where
\nhe disagrees and forms an opinion that the facts
\nmentioned in the report constitute an offence, he can
\ntake cognizance under Section 190(1)(c). But the
\nMagistrate cannot direct the police to submit a
\ncharge-sheet, because the submission of the report
\ndepends entirely upon the opinion formed by the
\npolice and not on the opinion of the Magistrate. If the
\nMagistrate disagrees with the report of the police he
\ncan take cognizance of the offence under Section
\n190(1)(a) or (c), but, he cannot compel the police to
\nform a particular opinion on investigation and submit
\na report according to such opinion.\n<\/p>\n
This judgment shows the importance of the opinion to be formed by the
\nofficer in charge of the police station. The opinion of the officer in charge of
\nthe police station is the basis of the report. Even a competent Magistrate
\ncannot compel the concerned police officer to form a particular opinion. The
\nformation of the opinion of the police on the material collected during the
\ninvestigation as to whether judicial scrutiny is warranted or not is entirely
\nleft to the officer in charge of the police station. There is no provision in the
\nCode empowering a Magistrate to compel the police to form a particular
\nopinion. This Court observed that, although the Magistrate may have certain
\nsupervisory powers under the Code, it cannot be said that when the police
\nsubmits a report that no case has been made out for sending the accused for
\ntrial, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to file a charge-sheet.
\nThe formation of the said opinion, by the officer in charge of the police
\nstation, has been held to be a final step in the investigation, and that final
\nstep has to be taken only by the officer in charge of the police station and by
\nno other authority.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of Union of India and Ors. v.  Sushil Kumar Modi and
\nOrs.<\/a>  investigation was entrusted to CBI in the fodder scam case by the
\nHigh Court to ensure proper and honest performance of duty by CBI. This
\nCourt directed CBI officers to inform the Chief Justice of the Patna High
\nCourt about the progress of the investigation and to obtain his directions if
\nso required for conducting the investigation. The Joint Director of CBI
\nsubmitted his report on the investigation carried out by him to the Chief
\nJustice of the High Court. The High Court found that the Director was trying
\nto interfere with the investigation and, therefore, the High Court directed that
\nall reports of the CBI officers shall be submitted directly to the court without
\nbeing forwarded to the Director, CBI. This order of the High Court was
\nchallenged. It was held that the Director, CBI was responsible and
\naccountable for the proper investigation of the case and, therefore, he cannot
\nbe excluded from the investigation. It was, however, observed that the
\nDirector, CBI was duty-bound to make a fair, honest and complete
\ninvestigation and officers associated with the investigation have to function
\nas members of a cohesive team engaged in common pursuit of such an
\ninvestigation so as to uphold the majesty of the law and preserve the rule of
\nlaw. It was held that, in case of any difference of opinion between officers of
\nCBI in respect of the investigation, final decision would not be taken by the
\nDirector himself or by the Director merely on the opinion of Legal
\nDepartment of the CBI, but the matter would be decided according to the
\nopinion of the Attorney General of India for the purpose of investigation and
\nfiling of the charge-sheet against any such individual. In that event, the
\nopinion would be sought from the Attorney General after making available
\nto him of the opinions expressed on the subject by the persons associated
\nwith the investigation as a part of the materials. We quote hereinbelow paras
\n13 and 14 of the said judgment:\n<\/p>\n
“13. We make it clear that in case of any difference of
\nopinion between the officers of the CBI in relation to the
\nimplication of any individual in the crimes or any other
\nmatter relating to the investigation, the final decision in
\nthe matter would not be taken by the Director, CBI,
\nhimself or by him merely on the opinion of the Legal
\nDepartment of the CBI; and in such a situation, the
\nmatter would be determined according to the opinion of
\nthe Attorney General of India for the purpose of the
\ninvestigation and filing of the charge-sheet against any
\nsuch individual. In that event, the opinion would be
\nsought from the Attorney General after making available
\nto him all the opinions expressed on the subject by the
\npersons associated with the investigation as a part of the
\nmaterials.\n<\/p>\n
14.  It appears necessary to add that the Court, in this
\nproceeding, is concerned with ensuring proper and honest
\nperformance of its duty by the CBI and not the merits of
\nthe accusations being investigated, which are to be
\ndetermined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in
\nthe competent court, according to the ordinary procedure
\nprescribed by law. Care must, therefore, be taken by the
\nHigh Court to avoid making any observation which may
\nbe construed as the expression of its opinion on merits
\nrelating to the accusation against any individual. Any
\nsuch observation made on the merits of the accusation so
\nfar by the High Court, including those in Para 8 of the
\nimpugned order are not to be treated as final, or having
\nthe approval of this Court. Such observations should not,
\nin any manner influence the decision on merits at the trial
\non the filing of the charge-sheet. The directions given by
\nthis Court in its aforesaid order dated 19.3.1996 have to
\nbe understood in this manner by all concerned, including
\nthe High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis position was clarified in the case of Union of India and Ors.  v.
\nSushil Kumar Modi and Ors.<\/a> . It was observed that the nature of the PIL
\nproceedings before the Patna High Court in the fodder scam case was
\nsomewhat similar to the proceedings in Vineet Narain’s  case. It was
\nobserved by this Court that, the performance of the PIL proceedings is
\nessentially to ensure performance of statutory duty by the CBI. The duty of
\nthe court in such proceedings is to ensure that CBI and other government
\nagencies do their duty in conformity with law. According to the Code, the
\nformation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the
\naccused for trial is that of the police officer making the investigation and the
\nfinal step in the investigation is to be taken only by the police and by no
\nother authority. It was observed that, in order to ensure compliance of this
\naspect of the Code, the directions were issued from time to time to CBI that
\nin case of difference of opinion at any stage during the investigation, the
\nfinal decision shall be of the Attorney General on reference being made to
\nhim on the difference of opinion between the officers concerned. This Court
\nfurther observed in that case that the High Court was only required to ensure
\nthat the Director, CBI did not close any investigation based only upon his
\nindividual opinion, if there be any difference of opinion between the
\nDirector, CBI and the other officers concerned in the CBI.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Vineet Narain and Ors.  v.  Union of India and Anr.  certain
\nmeasures by way of checks and balances were recommended by this Court
\nto insulate CBI from extraneous influence of any kind. It was observed that,
\nunless a proper investigation is made followed by a proper prosecution the
\nrule of law will lose significance. Accordingly, directions were issued till
\nsuch time as the legislature steps in by way of proper legislation. One of the
\npoints which arose for determination in that case was the significance of the
\nword “superintendence” in Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police
\nEstablishment Act, 1946. It was held that the overall superintendence of
\nCBI vests in the Central Government and, therefore, by virtue of Section 3
\nof that Act the power vested in the Central Government to specify the
\noffences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by CBI. But
\nonce that jurisdiction is attracted by virtue of the notification under
\nSection 3, the actual investigation is to be governed by the statutory
\nprovisions under the general law applicable to such investigation and the
\npower of the investigator cannot be curtailed by the executive instructions
\nissued under Section 4 by the Central Government. The general
\nsuperintendence over the functioning of the Directorate\/ department and
\nspecification of the offences to be investigated by CBI is not the same thing,
\ntherefore, the Central Government is precluded from controlling the
\ninitiation and the actual process of investigation. It was held that, the word
\n“superintendence” in Section 4(1) cannot be construed in a wider sense to
\npermit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence by CBI.
\nTherefore, the Central Government was precluded from issuing any
\ndirection to CBI to curtail or inhibit its jurisdiction to investigate an offence
\nspecified in the notification issued under Section 3 by a directive under
\nSection 4(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The
\nconstitution of the CVC flowed from the judgment of this Court in Vineet
\nNarain6 (supra). It is in this judgment that a direction was given to the
\nCentral Government by this Court for granting statutory status to the CVC.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of Union of India  v.    Prakash P. Hinduja and<\/a> anr.
\nthis Court has held that the provision contained in Chapter XII Cr.PC shows
\nthat detailed and elaborate provisions have been made for securing an
\ninvestigation into an offence of which information has been given. The
\nmanner and the method of conducting the investigation are left entirely to
\nthe officer in charge of the police station. A Magistrate has no power to
\ninterfere with the same. The formation of the opinion whether there is
\nsufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the
\nforwarding of the case to a Magistrate or not, as contemplated by Sections
\n169 and 170, is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station and a
\nMagistrate has absolutely no role to play at this stage. Similarly, after
\ncompletion of the investigation while making a report to the Magistrate
\nunder Section 173, the requisite details have to be submitted by the officer in
\ncharge of the police station without any kind of interference or direction of a
\nMagistrate and this will include an opinion regarding the fact whether any
\noffence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom, as provided by
\nclause (d) of sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 Cr. PC. These provisions are
\napplicable even in cases under the P.C. Act, 1988 vide Section 22 thereof.
\nThe Magistrate is not bound to accept the final report submitted by the
\npolice and if he feels that the evidence and the material collected during the
\ninvestigation justify prosecution of the accused, he may not accept that
\nreport and take cognizance of the offence and summon the accused, which
\nwould not constitute interference with the investigation as such. In the said
\njudgment, it was further observed, relying upon the judgment in Vineet
\nNarain6 (supra), that once the jurisdiction is conferred on CBI to investigate
\nan offence by virtue of notification under Section 3 of the Act, the powers of
\ninvestigation are governed by the statutory provisions and they cannot be
\ncurtained by any executive instruction issued under Section 4(1) of the Delhi
\nSpecial Police Establishment Act, 1946.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnalyses of the above judgments show that there is a clear-cut and
\nwell-demarcated sphere of activities in the field of crime detection and crime
\npunishment. Investigation of an offence is the field reserved for the
\nexecutive through the police department, the superintendence over which
\nvests in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep
\nvigilance over law and order situation. It is obliged to prevent crime. If an
\noffence is committed allegedly, it is the State’s duty to investigate into the
\noffence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates through the
\npolice department and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty
\nto collect evidence for the purposes of proving the offence. Once that is
\ncompleted, the investigating officer submits report to the court requesting
\nthe court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.PC and his
\nduty comes to an end. Therefore, there is a well-defined and well-
\ndemarcated functions in the field of crime detection and its subsequent
\nadjudication by the court. Lastly, the term “investigation” under Section
\n173(2) of the Cr.PC includes opinion of the officer in charge of the police
\nstation as to whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of
\nsuspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to the concerned court or not.
\nThis opinion is not legal evidence. At the stage of Section 173(2) the
\nquestion of interpretation of legal evidence does not arise. In any event, that
\nfunction is that of the courts.\n<\/p>\n
CASE LAW ON THE ROLE OF OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE
\nPOLICE STATION:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of K. Veeraswami  v.  Union of India and Ors.<\/a>  this
\nCourt observed vide para 76 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“76. The charge sheet is nothing but a final report of
\npolice officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC The
\nSection 173(2) provides that on completion of the
\ninvestigation the police officer investigating into a
\ncognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must
\nbe in the form prescribed by the State Government and
\nstating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature
\nof the information; (c) the names of the persons who
\nappear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
\ncase; (d) whether any offence appears to have been
\ncommitted and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused
\nhas been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his
\nbond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g)
\nwhether he has been forwarded in custody under Section\n<\/p>\n
170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi
\nand Ors. v. State of Bihar<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 152; that the
\nstatutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2)
\nwould be complied with if the various details prescribed
\ntherein are included in the report. This report is an
\nintimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a
\ncognizable offence the investigating officer has been able
\nto procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into
\nthe offence and the necessary information is being sent to
\nthe court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2)
\npurports to be an opinion of the investigating officer that
\nas far as he is concerned he has been able to procure
\nsufficient material for the trial of the accused by the
\ncourt. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all
\nthe documents and statements of witnesses as required by
\nSection 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report
\nof the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that
\nall the details of the offence must be stated. The details of
\nthe offence are required to be proved to bring home the
\nguilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the
\ntrial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                            (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of Kaptan Singh and Ors.   v.  State of M.P. and Anr.<\/a>
\nthis Court held vide para 5 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“5. From a conspectus of the above decisions it follows
\nthat the revisional power of the High Court while sitting
\nin judgment over an order of acquittal should not be
\nexercised unless there exists a manifest illegality in the
\njudgment or order of acquittal or there is grave
\nmiscarriage of justice. Read in the context of the above
\nprinciple of law we have no hesitation in concluding that
\nthe judgment of the trial court in the instant case is
\npatently wrong and it has caused grave miscarriage of
\njustice. The High Court was therefore fully justified in
\nsetting aside the order of acquittal. From the judgment of
\nthe trial court we find that one of the grounds that largely
\nweighed with it for acquitting the appellants was that an
\nInspector of CID who had taken up the investigation of
\nthe case and was examined by the defence (DW 3)
\ntestified that during his investigation he found that the
\nstory as made out by the prosecution was not true and on
\nthe contrary the plea of the accused (appellants) that in
\nthe night of the incident a dacoity with murder took place
\nin the house of Baijnath by unknown criminals and the
\nappellants were implicated falsely was true. It is trite that
\nresult of investigation can never be legal evidence; and
\nthis Court in Vijender  v. State of Delhi<\/a> (1997)6 SCC 171
\nmade the following comments while dealing with this
\nissue:\n<\/p>\n
‘The reliance of the trial Judge on the result
\nof investigation to base his findings is again
\npatently wrong. If the observation of the trial
\nJudge in this regard is taken to its logical
\nconclusion it would mean that a finding of
\nguilt can be recorded against an accused
\nwithout a trial, relying solely upon the police
\nreport submitted under Section 173 CrPC,
\nwhich is the outcome of an investigation.\n<\/p>\n
The result of investigation under Chapter
\nXII of the Criminal Procedure Code is a
\nconclusion that an Investigating Officer
\ndraws on the basis of materials collected
\nduring investigation and such conclusion
\ncan only form the basis of a competent court
\nto take cognizance thereupon under Section
\n190(1)(b) CrPC and to proceed with the case
\nfor trial, where the materials collected
\nduring investigation are to be translated into
\nlegal evidence. The trial court is then
\nrequired to base its conclusion solely on the
\nevidence adduced during the trial; and it
\ncannot rely on the investigation or the result
\nthereof. Since this is an elementary principle
\nof criminal law, we need not dilate on this
\npoint any further’.”        (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
In the case of R. Sarala   v.  T.S. Velu and Ors.  the<\/a> facts were as
\nfollows. A young bride committed suicide within seven months of her
\nmarriage. An inquiry under Section 174(3) Cr.PC was held. The Magistrate
\nconducted the inquiry and submitted a report holding that due to mental
\nrestlessness she had committed suicide and no one was responsible. He
\nfurther opined that her death was not due to dowry demand. However, the
\npolice continued with the investigation and submitted a challan against the
\nhusband of the deceased and his mother for the offence under
\nSections 304 B and 498 A IPC. The father of the deceased was not satisfied
\nwith the challan as the sister-in-law and the father-in-law were not arraigned
\nas accused. Therefore, the deceased’s father moved the High Court under
\nSection 482 Cr.PC. A Single Judge of the High Court directed that the
\npapers be placed before the Public Prosecutor. He was asked to give an
\nopinion on the matter and, thereafter, the court directed that an amended
\ncharge-sheet should be filed in the concerned court. This court held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“In this case the High Court has committed an illegality
\nin directing the final report to be taken back and to file a
\nfresh report incorporating the opinion of the Public
\nProsecutor. Such an order cannot stand legal scrutiny.
\nThe formation of the opinion, whether or not there is a
\ncase to place the accused on trial, should be that of the
\nofficer in charge of the police station and none else.
\nThere is no stage during which the investigating officer is
\nlegally obliged to take the opinion of a Public Prosecutor
\nor any authority, except the superior police officer in the
\nrank as envisaged in Section 36 of the Code. A Public
\nProsecutor is appointed, as indicated in Section 24 CrPC,
\nfor conducting any prosecution, appeal or other
\nproceedings in the court.  He has also the power to
\nwithdraw any case from the prosecution with the consent
\nof the court. He is the officer of the court. Thus the
\nPublic Prosecutor is to deal with a different field in the
\nadministration of justice and he is not involved in
\ninvestigation.  It is not the scheme of the Code for
\nsupporting or sponsoring any combined operation
\nbetween the investigating officer and the Public
\nProsecutor for filing the report in the court.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF
\nTHIS CASE:\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the outset, we may state that this Court has repeatedly emphasized
\nin the above judgments that in Supreme Court monitored cases this Court is
\nconcerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by CBI
\nand that this Court is not concerned with the merits of the accusations in
\ninvestigation, which are to be determined at the trial on the filing of the
\ncharge-sheet in the competent court, according to the ordinary procedure
\nprescribed by law. Therefore, the question which we have to decide in the
\npresent case is whether the administrative hierarchy of officers in the CBI, in
\nthe present case, have performed their duties in a proper and honest manner.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs stated above, the formation of the opinion, whether or not there is
\na case to place the accused on trial, should be that of the officer in charge of
\nthe police station and none else. Under the CBI Manual, the officer in charge
\nof the police station is the S.P.. In this connection, we quote hereinbelow the
\nCBI Manual, which though not binding on this Court in Supreme Court
\nmonitored cases, nonetheless, the said Manual throws light on the
\ncontroversy in hand. We quote clauses 6.1 and 19.15 of the CBI (Crime)
\nManual-2005 hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
“DIRECTOR, CBIMatters to be shown to DCBI<\/p>\n
6.1\tDirector, CBI should be informed of all important
\nmatters and his advice or instructions obtained wherever
\nthis is considered necessary by Special Director,
\nAdditional Director, Joint Directors, DIsG, Director of
\nProsecution, Director, CFSL and other Senior Officers.
\nIn particular, the following matters should be referred to
\nhim.”\n<\/p>\n
“19.15  SP’s Report is a very important document and
\nshould be  prepared personally by the SP in the
\nprescribed format. The concerned Departments\/
\nGovernment Undertakings assess the CBI investigation
\nof their cases solely on the basis of the SP’s Reports. The
\nreport should be grammatically correct, clear and
\nunambiguous. The report should be brief without
\nrepetitions and should contain all necessary data. The
\ninternal differences of opinion among CBI Officers
\nshould not find mention in the SP’s Report, which should
\nadvance all arguments to justify the final order passed by
\nthe Competent Authority in the CBI. The final
\nrecommendation should be precise. If sanction is
\nrequired, the relevant Section (including sub-section) of
\nlaw under which sanction is required should be
\nmentioned with brief grounds. In some of the cases,
\ncharge sheets cannot be filed and only complaints by
\ncertain statutory authorities can be filed in the Court. In
\nsuch cases, the relevant section prescribing the filing of a
\ncomplaint should be mentioned in the SP’s Report. It
\nshould be borne in mind by the SP that the efficiency and
\nthe quality of work done by the CBI would be viewed
\nmainly on the basis of the SP’s Report and, therefore, no
\neffort should be spared to make it factually correct,
\nsystematic, cogent and logical.”         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tIn the present case, the investigating team consisted of the I.O., S.P.,
\nD.I.G., Joint Director and Additional Director CBI. In the present case, the
\nlaw officers consisted of D.L.A. and A.L.A.. In the present case, the entire
\ninvestigating team as well as the said law officers are ad idem in their mind.
\nThey have recommended prosecution. It is only the Director of Prosecution
\nand the Sr. P.P. who have opined that a closure report should be filed. It may
\nbe noted that Sr. P.P. does not find place in clause 6.1 which refers to the
\nadministrative hierarchy of CBI. Further, the Director of Prosecution is the
\nonly officer who had dissented from the opinion of the investigating team
\nincluding the S.P.. It appears that this opinion is also based only on
\ninterpretation of legal evidence. Moreover, as can be seen from the Status
\nReport dated 31.12.2004, the Director, CBI has not given his independent
\nopinion. He has merely relied upon the opinion of the Attorney General. We
\ncan understand the Director, CBI expressing an opinion and then referring
\nthe matter to the Attorney General. Under the above circumstances, we are
\nof the view that, there was no difference of opinion in the matter of
\ninvestigation between the concerned officers of CBI and, therefore, there
\nwas no question of the Director, CBI referring the matter to the Attorney
\nGeneral of India. As stated by this Court in the case of R. Sarla10 (supra),
\nthe formation of opinion, whether or not there is a case to place the accused
\non trial has to be of the officer in charge of the police station. One fails to
\nunderstand why an opinion of Sr. P.P. had been taken in the present case. He
\nis not a member of the hierarchy. The S.P. is not legally obliged to take his
\nopinion. In the circumstances, when there was no difference of opinion in
\nthe concerned team, the question of seeking opinion of the Attorney General
\ndid not arise. Lastly, even under clause 19.15 of the CBI Manual it is
\nexpressly stated that the report of the S.P. should be prepared personally by
\nthe S.P. and that the internal differences of opinion among CBI Officers
\nshould not find place in the SP’s Report. As stated above, CBI was required
\nto follow the procedure in Cr.PC. The result of the investigation by the
\npolice is not legal evidence. Keeping in mind the scheme of Sections 168,
\n169, 170 and 173 of the Cr.PC, in the facts and circumstances of this case,
\nwe direct the entire material collected by CBI along with the report of the
\nS.P. to be placed before the concerned court\/ Special Judge in terms of
\nSection 173(2) Cr.PC. The decision to accept or reject the report of the S.P.
\nshall be that of the concerned court\/ Special Judge, who will decide the
\nmatter in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore concluding two points need clarification. Under Article 142 of
\nthe Constitution, this Court is empowered to take aid and assistance of any
\nAuthority for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before
\nit. In the present case, at one stage of the matter, voluminous records were
\nplaced by CBI before this Court along with the recommendations of its
\nofficers. To vet and analyse the material, this Court essentially directed
\nCVC to study the material, analyse the findings and give its
\nrecommendations as to the manner in which the investigations have been
\ncarried out. Since CVC has fairly stated before this Court that its advice is
\nonly in the nature of an opinion which is not a binding direction in this case,
\nwe are not required to examine the scope of the CVC Act, 2003. Secondly,
\nin our earlier order, we have given time to CBI to complete legal scrutiny
\nwhen we were told that there was difference of opinion in the administrative
\nhierarchy of CBI. However, after going through the recommendations of the
\nabove officers, we are of the view, as stated above, that there was no
\ndifference of opinion of the concerned officers and, therefore, there was no
\nquestion of reference to the Attorney General. We reject the Status Report
\ndated 31.12.2004 as it is a charade of the performance of duty by the CBI.
\nThus, a case for judicial review is made out.\n<\/p>\n
We, accordingly, direct the CBI to place the evidence\/ material
\ncollected by the investigating team along with the report of the S.P. as
\nrequired under Section 173(2) Cr.PC before the concerned court\/ Special
\nJudge who will decide the matter in accordance with law. It is necessary to
\nadd that, in this case, we were concerned with ensuring proper and honest
\nperformance of duty by the CBI and our above observations and reasons are
\nconfined only to that aspect of the case and they should not be understood as
\nour opinion on the merits of accusation being investigated. We do not wish
\nto express any opinion on the recommendations of the S.P.. It is made clear
\nthat none of the other opinions\/ recommendations including that of the
\nAttorney General of India, CVC shall be forwarded to the concerned court\/
\nSpecial Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the matters after matters, we find that the efficacy and ethics of the
\ngovernmental authorities are progressively coming under challenge before
\nthis Court by way of PIL for failure to perform their statutory duties. If this
\ncontinues, a day might come when the rule of law will stand reduced to
\n“a rope of sand”.\n<\/p>\n
The above Interlocutory applications are accordingly disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006 Author: Kapadia Bench: S. H. Kapadia, D. K. Jain CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 13381 of 1984 PETITIONER: M.C. Mehta RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/11\/2006 BENCH: S. H. Kapadia & D. K. Jain JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-07T18:57:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T18:57:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":9065,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006\",\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T18:57:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-07T18:57:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T18:57:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006"},"wordCount":9065,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006","name":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T18:57:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138142","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}