STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. HEMENDHRA REDDY
| Citation | Diary no: 27274 / 2017 |
| Date of Judgment | 28 Apr, 2023 |
| Court | Supreme court of India |
| Case Type | Crl.A arising out of SLP(CRL.) |
| Appellant | State through central bureau of investigation |
| Respondent | Hemendhra reddy |
| Bench | Justice Mr. shah, Justice J.B. Pardiwala |
| Referred | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
FACTS:
The respondent No. 3 herein D. Dwarakanadha Reddy (Accused No. 1) joined the services of the Customs Department as a Preventive Officer in the year 1993.
According to the information received by the SP(CBI), Since 2004, D. Dwarakanadha Reddy (A-1) has held the position of Appraiser for the Customs Department, and his pay is his primary source of income. His wife, D. Sujana Reddy (A-2), conducts business under the name M/s Sujana Engineers but does not own any agricultural land.
The couple’s combined income during the period was Rs. 50, 95, 371.57, which included A-1’s salary income, A-2’s agricultural income, A-3’s business income, bank interest, the couple’s housing loan from the Andhra Bank, capital gain from the sale of the property, A- 1’s rewards, etc. The couple’s assets totaled Rs. 64, 41, 690,92 lakhs between 01.04.2001 and 31. Between April 1, 2001, and March 31, 2005, they spent a total of Rs. 12, 74, 347.16. Their savings totaled Rs. 38, 21, 024.41 (v) and as of 31.03.2005, their entire disproportionate assets were valued at Rs. 26, 20, 666.51.
In the above considered situations, the CBI filed a FIR in RC MA 1 2006 A 0027 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860. On December 24, 2008, the CBI/ACB submitted a petition to the Chennai-based Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, asking him to adjourn the case and restore the documents so that the accused No. 1 may face regular departmental action (respondent No. 3). The application included, among other things:
“After completion of investigation it has come to light that the accused cannot be prosecuted. Hence, Final Report u/s. 173 Cr. PC is being filed which may be accepted.”
High Court had quashed the full proceedings of the CBI against the accused on the ground that the CBI could not have undertaken further investigation Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the Special Court could not have taken cognizance upon the chargesheet filed by the CBI based on further investigation, having once already filed a closure report in the past and the same having been accepted by the court concerned at the relevant point of time
PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS:
The distinguished Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. Jayant K. Sud, spoke on behalf of the CBI and forcefully argued that the High Court made a significant mistake when it issued the challenged orders, which resulted in a serious injustice.
The learned attorney further argued that it is well established law that additional investigations may be conducted under subsection (8) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code even after the closure report has been filed and accepted by the court in question. He would contend that fresh information/evidence emerged and entered the CBI’s possession because of which a proper application was made before the Special Court, requesting authorization to carry out the additional investigation. Additionally, he claimed that the CBI’s submission was properly considered, and the Special Court gave the CBI permission to reopen the case and do more research.
The learned attorney further argued that the respondent No. 3 (Accused No. 1) had questioned the CBI’s entire action in seeking to reopen the case and conduct additional investigation before the High Court by filing Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014, and the High Court had declined to intervene by way of a detailed order. The learned attorney argues that the decision made by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Crl. O.P. No. 6371 of 2014 was binding on another Co-ordinate Bench and could not have been disregarded or disregarded on the grounds that the High Court was not made aware of this Court’s decision in the Vinit Tyagi case. Mr. Sud also argued that the earlier phase of the litigation did not take the Court’s ruling in Vinit Tyagi (above) into account.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS:
The knowledgeable attorney representing the accused individuals has strongly resisted all appeals, arguing that the High Court did not commit any error in making the decisions that are being challenged, much less a legal error. The Special Court’s (CBI) acceptance of a closure report would, in the opinion of the experienced counsel, officially end the case and serve as a legal impediment to the investigating agency conducting any additional inquiries into the alleged offense. The experienced counsel placed significant emphasis on the requirement that a matter be pending before the court in question to give authorization to conduct further inquiry in an addendum report.
The learned counsel claims that nothing was pending in the current matter when the order under Section 173(8) of the CrPC was made. It was noted that the FIR had been closed and that the CBI had been asked to receive all evidence gathered throughout the inquiry for use in departmental proceedings. According to the attorney, there was no room for additional investigation in these circumstances, and even if additional investigation were authorized, it would be equivalent to a de novo investigation, which is otherwise not permitted by law.
The learned attorney argued that more investigation cannot be authorized at this time.
According to one argument, the case Four years after the closure report’s release date, the additional inquiry was conducted. The right of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution would be violated if additional inquiry was permitted to be conducted after an indefinitely long length of time.
The knowledgeable attorney further argued that the failure to comply with the duty mandated by Section 17(Second proviso) of the 1988 Act raises another issue in the ongoing dispute. The learned attorney claims that Mr. Syed Bazlullah, ASP/CBI/ACB/Chennai, submitted the chargesheet in C.C.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. Upon review of RC MA 1 2006 A 0027 for an offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, it was discovered that the same does not include the order passed by an officer not below the Rank of Superintendent of Police, as mandated under Section 17(Second proviso) of the 1988 Act. As a result, the chargesheet in C.C. No. 13 of 2015 was created. It was alleged that the 1988 Act’s Section 17(Second proviso) was violated, rendering the entire trial invalid.
The following case law has been cited in support of the aforesaid submissions:
- Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others v. Vinay Tyagi, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762.
- State of Gujarat v. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya, (2019) 17 SCC 1.
- Luckose Zachariah alias Zak Nedumchira Luke and Others v. Joseph and Others, (2022) SCC, SC 241.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside and quashed the order passed by the high court. The division bench held that even after the final report is submitted, further investigation can be carried out, and there is no bar against it. It is also not necessary to review, recall or quash the order which accepted the final report.
Written by KAUSHAL S S, BA., LL. B[H], School of legal studies, REVA University, an intern under legal Vidhiya.
