Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. 'Niyamavedi', claiming itself to be a public spirited organisation consisting of lawyers, represented by one of its members Miss. K. Nandini, Advocate, moved this Court by filing O. P. 17367 of 1994 inter-alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent, the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, to arrest first respondent -Raman Srivastava, I. P. S., Inspector General of Police, Southern Zone, Kerala State - for his alleged involvement in the I.S.R.O. espionage case. Petitioner also prayed for directing the State Government to place Sri. Raman Srivastava under suspension with immediate effect.

2. On the basis of the reports in the newspapers-Indian Express and Mathrubhoomi-petitioner contended that first respondent by utilising his official power had involved in the I.S.R.O. espionage case. According to the paper reports, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation and Joint Director of Intelligence Bureau interrogated one Fousiya in jail, who identified first respondent, who was popularly known in the spy racket as 'Brigadier Srivastava' from several others and that Sri. Vijayarama Rao, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation became convinced of the role of the first respondent in the espionage case on interrogation of the Maldivian women Mariam Rasheeda and Fousiya. But despite all these, according to the petitioner, conclusive prima-facie evidences, the Central Bureau of Investigation is reluctant to arrest the first respondent and remove him from service because of the high connections and contacts wielded by first respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police officer should arrest any person who has been concerned with or against whom credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his involvement in the commission of a cognizable offence. The failure to arrest first respondent by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it is alleged, is a naked violation of Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On these averments petitioner moved O. P. 17367 of 1994.

4. This appeal came up for admission on 21 -12-1994. On that day, learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that he wanted to get instruction from the Central Bureau of Investigation. So, the case was posted to 28-12-1994. On that day also, the learned counsel was not in a position to give any detail regarding the involvement of the first respondent in the I.S.R.O. espionage case. So, we directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to make available the records connected with the questioning of the first respondent before Court. We also wanted the officer who questioned first respondent to file affidavit. Pursuant to this direction, Sri. R. S. Dhankhar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was in charge of the investigation of the case and Sri. Surinder Paul, another Deputy Superintendent of Police who questioned first respondent, filed affidavits. The affidavits filed by these officers were cryptic. They stated that no material has been revealed in the course of investigation to indicate any involvement of the first respondent in the case. They produced the entire Case Diary relating to the investigation of the so-called I.S.R.O. espionage case before Court. Since we were not satisfied with the affidavits filed by the above-mentioned officers, we directed Sri. Vijaya Rama Rao the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, to peruse the entire records and to satisfy himself as to whether the investigation is proceeding in the proper line. His conclusions, on such examination, were to be submitted to Court in the form of an affidavit. Thereupon the Director filed affidavit dated January 7, 1995. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit, it has been averred :-

In the instant case, by order dated 6-1-1995, we ordered the production of all materials collected by the Director, Central Intelligence Bureau and his subordinates in connection with I.S.R.O. espionage case. It was also ordered that the report filed by the Central Intelligence Bureau to the Central Government and all supporting materials, including the material objects, if any, should be made available to Court. Pursuant thereto, all documents and Video Cassettes have been produced. According to us, the documents and the Cassettes now produced before us cannot fall in any of the class documents mentioned by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to earlier. We are concerned with the documents and reports submitted by the Intelligence Bureau and the Central Bureau of Investigation to the Government and the materials collected by them in the course of the investigation of the I.S.R.O. espionage case. In this view of the matter, we feel that the privilege claimed by the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is not sustainable and we overrule the same. On our examination of the records, we could not come across any material which has even remotely any connections with the situation mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Special Secretary.