Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Application for intervention is allowed.

2) Leave granted.

3) This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 19.07.2010 whereby the learned single Judge confirmed the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the District Judge-VII/NE-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in S.C. No. 26/10, RC SII 2005 S0024. By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge has ordered the framing of charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 436, 339 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and for the offence under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 435, 339 and 505 IPC, besides framing of a separate charge for offence punishable under Section 153A IPC and rejected the application for discharge filed by the appellant.

19) Learned Additional Solicitor General has brought to our notice the letter dated 24.10.2005 from Mr. K.P. Singh, Special Secretary (H) to Mr. U.S. Mishra, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, North Block, New Delhi. A perusal of the said letter shows that in reply to the discussion held in the Lok Sabha on 10.08.2005 and the Rajya Sabha on 11.08.2005 on the report of Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had given an assurance that wherever the Commission has named any specific individuals as needing further examination or re- opening of case the Government will take all possible steps to do so within the ambit of law. The letter further shows that based on the assurance on the floor of the Parliament, the Government examined the report of Justice Nanavati Commission, its recommendations regarding investigation/re-investigation of the cases against (a) Shri Dharam Das Shastri, (b) Shri Jagdish Tytler, and (c) Shri Sajjan Kumar. The letter further shows that the Government had decided that the work of conducting further investigation/re-investigation against the abovementioned persons as per the recommendations of Justice Nanavati Commission should be entrusted to the CBI. Pursuant to the said decision, Home Department forwarded the relevant records connected with the cases against the abovementioned persons. It also shows those additional records/information required in connection with investigation are to be obtained from the Delhi Police. The materials placed by the CBI show that Justice Nanavati Commission submitted its report on 09.02.2005, its recommendations were discussed by the Lok Sabha on 10.08.2005 and the Rajya Sabha on 11.08.2005, Government of India asked CBI to inquire those recommendations on 24.10.2005 and the F.I.R. No. 416 of 1984 dated 04.11.1984 of Police Station, Delhi Cantt was re-registered by the CBI as case RC-24(S)/2005- SCU.I/CBI/SCR.I/New Delhi. Pursuant to the same, on 22.11.2005, investigation was taken up and it revealed that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 302, 396, 427, 436, 449, 505 and 201 IPC and accordingly filed the charge-sheet. It is relevant to note that no one including the appellant has not challenged appointment of CBI to inquire into the recommendations made by Justice Nanavati Commission.

23) In P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2010) 2 SCC 398, this Court while considering scope of Section 227 of Crl.P.C. upheld the order dismissing the petition filed for discharge and permitted the prosecution to proceed further even after 28 years. In that case, from 1970 till 1998, there was no allegation that the encounter was a fake and only in the year 1998 reports appeared in various newspapers in Kerala that the killing of Varghese in the year 1970 was in a fake encounter and that senior police officers were involved in the said fake encounter. Pursuant to the said news reports, several writ petitions were filed by various individuals and organisations before the High Court of Kerala with a prayer that the investigation may be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In the said writ petition, Constable Ramachandran Nair filed a counter affidavit dated 11.01.1999 in which he made a confession that he had shot Naxalite Varghese on the instruction of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Lakshmana. He also stated that the appellant was present when the incident occurred. By order dated 27.01.1999, learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala passed an order directing CBI to register an FIR on the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by Constable Ramachandran Nair. Accordingly, CBI registered an FIR on 3-3-1999 in which Constable Ramachandran Nair was named as Accused 1, Mr Lakshmana was named as Accused 2 and Mr. P. Vijayan, the appellant, was named as Accused 3 for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, CBI filed a charge-sheet before the Special Judge (CBI), Ernakulam on 11.12.2002 wherein all the abovementioned persons were named as A-1 to A-3 respectively for an offence under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The appellant - P. Vijayan filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code on 17.05.2007 for discharge on various grounds including on the ground of delay. The trial Judge, by order dated 08.06.2007, dismissed the said petition and passed an order for framing charge for offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant - Vijayan filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 2455 of 2007 before the High Court of Kerala. By an order dated 04.07.2007, learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition. The said order was challenged by Mr. P. Vijayan before this Court. Taking note of all the ingredients in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the materials placed by the prosecution and the reasons assigned by the trial Judge for dismissing the discharge petition filed under Section 227, this Court confirmed the order of the trial Judge as well as the order of the High Court. Though, there was a considerable lapse of time from the alleged occurrence and the further investigation by CBI inasmuch as adequate material was shown, the Court permitted the prosecution to proceed further.