Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Extra Judicial Execution Victim And ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 July, 2018
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Uday Umesh Lalit
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 129/2012
EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION VICTIM & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 30-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
Dr. Maneka Guruswamy, Adv. (AC)
Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv.
Mr. Sagar Gupta, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shreeji Bhavsar, Adv.
Ms. Olivia Bang, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney Gen.
Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sunil J. Mathews, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv.
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Kanika S., Adv.
Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR
Manipur Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Leishangthem Roshmani Kh, Adv.
Ms. Maibam Babina, Adv.
NHRC
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.
Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI
Date: 2018.07.31
Mr. Anshuman Ashok, AOR.
17:58:24 IST
Reason:
1
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR
Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, AOR
Ms. Pinky Behera, AOR
Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
Manipur H.C. Ms. Sneha Kalita, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Director, CBI is present in the Court today pursuant to order dated 27.07.2018.
We have heard the learned Attorney General and Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned ASG. We have also heard the learned Amicus and learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned ASG has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226]. He has referred to the directions given by this Court in para 58 therein particularly sub para 12:
“The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the CrPC provides essential guidelines for the CBI's functioning. It is imperative that the CBI adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the officials concerned.” In view of the submission made by the learned Attorney General, the learned Amicus has shown to us the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual – 2005.
We have gone through Chapter 19 thereof, which deals with Final Reports, SPs Reports and Comments of Superior Officers. 2 On going through this Chapter, we find that the Investigating Officer is required to give a Final Report in terms of Part I of the proforma attached to the Manual. Thereafter, the comments of the Law Officer is required to be given in terms of Part II of the proforma attached to the Manual. This is in terms of paras 19.3 and 19.4 of the Manual.
The Law Officer gives his comments on the matter which is required to be processed by the Supervisory Officer (Superintendent of Police) in terms of para 19.6 of the Manual.
In this context, it was submitted by Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, In charge of SIT and it was also submitted before us on an earlier occasion that the entire process is to be looked into at 6 or 7 levels of officers, if not more. However, on a reading of Chapter 19 of the Manual, it appears that the only persons who are involved in the consultation process are the Investigating Officer, the Law Officer and the Supervisory Officer (Superintendent of Police).
In this particular case, the person In charge of the SIT is of the rank of Deputy Director General now promoted as Joint Director. He is therefore superior to the officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, we are of the view that the comments of the Supervisory Officer can always be obtained from the officer in charge of the SIT i.e the DIG / Joint Director.
However, the Director, CBI has requested that the Superintendent of Police may continue to be involved for the purposes of giving his comments. We accede to the request made by the Director, CBI and permit the Superintendent of Police to be involved as the Supervisory Officer along with the DIG / Joint 3 Director.
During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that there are 6 or 7 levels of officers that are required to be consulted before a charge sheet or final report is finalized. The process can be compressed and the entire exercise can be undertaken within a period of three weeks.
Now it appears that since only two layers of officers are involved, we are of the view that not more than two weeks are required for the purpose of processing the case from the stage of FR to the filing of charge sheet or final report under Section 173 of the CrPC. We direct accordingly.
On our asking Mr. Aggarwal, DIG / Joint Director, who is the head of the SIT, has submitted that he would require one more officer for each Investigating Officer. It transpires that there are 12 Investigating Officers and each one of them already has two officers attached to them. Notwithstanding this, the Director has acceded to the request made by Mr. Aggarwal and has assured that one more officer will be attached to each Investigating Officer, as desired by Mr. Aggarwal.
In our opinion, this should certainly expedite the investigation particularly since Mr. Aggarwal has not made any other request in spite of our asking.
In our judgment and order dated 14.07.2017 [(2017) 8 SCC 417], we had identified the number of incidents as 52 (in the first instance). During the course of monitoring the progress in the case, the number of incidents has come down to 41 due to the fact that in some cases there was a duplication, in some other cases the 4 NHRC did not receive any complaint etc. The Director has informed us that today two charge sheets have been filed in which there are 14 accused persons out of which all of them have been charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with 120B of the IPC. It has been pointed out that they have also been charged with an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.
We have been informed by the Director that on or before 31.08.2018, 5 more charge sheets / final reports will be filed making a total of 7 charge sheets / final reports. To further look into the matter we are adjourning the case to 20.08.2018 on which date we request the Director to be present in the Court at 2.00 pm. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the accused persons have been charged with offences punishable under Section 302, IPC read with 120B, IPC and Section 201 IPC, the accused persons should normally be arrested. Where investigations are going on in respect of similar offences, custodial interrogation would be necessary. We have recorded this submission but leave it entirely to the discretion of the Director, CBI and the SIT to take a call on whether arrests should be made and whether custodial interrogation should be carried out.
List the matter on 20.08.2018 at 2.00 pm.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (KAILASH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
5