Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah and others, (1997) 7 SCC 614

BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant, Union Public Service Commission, conducted the India Forest Service Examinations for the year 1992. Respondent 1, S. Papaiah was a candidate for the said exam. On September 27, 1993, UPSC sent a complaint to the Joint Director of CBI alleging that Respondent 1 had used unfair means in the examination, in consonance with the supervisor in charge of the examination, Respondent 2. It said it found some factors indicating a nexus between the candidate and the supervisor in charge by examining the answer books, the attendance sheet, the sitting plan, etc. The appellant, UPSC, requested CBI to conduct an investigation in this regard and intimate the results of the investigation to it. CBI registered the same complaint and a case under Sections 120-B, 420, 381, 468, and 478 IPC. The said investigation was entrusted to Shri T.N. Rao.

On September 12, 1994, the CBI filed a final report under Section 173 of CrPC in the court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, before whom the FIR had been lodged, asking for the closure of the case. The Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the report on December 5, 1994, asking for a notice from the appellant-complainant that they have been informed about the results of the investigation. The CBI resubmitted the final report once again with the requisite documents. The Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the report many times after that, once asking the CBI to inform the UPSC that they could file objections to the final report and the other time asking for the statements of witnesses, copies of documents including the reports of the handwriting experts, etc, along with the closure report.

Meanwhile, UPSC wrote a letter to Shri K. Vijaya Rama Rao, Director, CBI, addressing its grievances about the investigation in response to the notice informing them that CBI had decided to file a closure report in the court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate. The UPSC raised several points of contention and said that the investigation had not been carried out properly and that as many as six vital points, that were raised in the complaint, have not been investigated at all. It said that there was a need for reinvestigation of the case at some ‘higher level’.

While UPSC was awaiting a response communication from the CBI in this respect, the CBI apparently resubmitted the closure report once again on February 24, 1995, and this time with all the requisite documents. On March 16, 1995, The Vth Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the final report and closed the case without giving any opportunity to the UPSC to give its say.

The UPSC, while awaiting the response communication and while being oblivious to the fact that the final report had been accepted by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, wrote to CBI on April 6, 1995, reminding the CBI about the reinvestigation of the case. To this, CBI replied saying that the closure report had been accepted by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate and that if they want the case to be reinvestigated, they should accordingly move to the concerned court.

After receiving this communication from CBI, the UPSC filed a petition in the court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking reinvestigation of the case. It argued that several vital points had been missed out and the investigation was not conducted properly. The court rejected the petition and declined to order any reinvestigation stating that it was outside its jurisdiction to order a review for the order already passed and that UPSC could file a revision petition seeking appropriate orders against the acceptance of the final report from the revisional court.

The UPSC filed a revision petition, which was again rejected by the revision court. The Ist Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, in front of whom the petition was filed, agreed with the court of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, stating that it did not have the power to review the order dated March 16, 1995. It dismissed the petition and observed that the final report had been accepted by following proper procedure and that it required no interference.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Should the Magistrate have given a notice and opportunity of hearing to the informant before accepting the final report and closing the case?
2. Should the Magistrate have taken into account the shortcomings of the investigation, as pointed out by the UPSC, and ordered further investigation into the case?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The counsel for the appellant argued that the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate did not call the appellant-complainant to file objections against the investigations conducted by the CBI at all, nor any notice was issued by the court with respect to the fact that the court had accepted the final report and has called for the closure of the case. Since UPSC was not issued any notice before the court dropped the criminal proceedings, the learned counsel argued that the decision of the court of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate stands vitiated.

It used the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police as a legal precedent and said that the Magistrate has three recourses to adopt when it receives an investigation report stating that no offence has been committed- i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings ii) it may reject the report, take cognizance and issue process iii) he may direct the investigating body to conduct further investigation. In this case, it was held that if the Magistrate decides to choose the first recourse, and the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the case and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. The Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report.

The learned counsel further stated that the order of the Ist Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge to reject the revision petition and side with the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate’s decision was based on wrong factual assumptions. The revision court did not exercise the power vested with it in accordance with the law to order further investigation into a case.

Moreover, it requested that a further ‘higher level’ investigation is necessary since it was a question of general public interest. This was a cheating case with respect to a national-level examination and any discrepancy in conducting the examination with utmost honesty and integrity would erode people’s faith in the public institution.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned counsel for the CBI stated that since the UPSC did not file any objections to the closure report which the CBI had filed in the court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, it could not be now permitted to make any grievance about the acceptance of the final report and that the petition filed by the appellant should be rejected.

Another argument given by them was that the CBI had earlier issued a notice to the UPSC in this regard before the acceptance of the closure report by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate and that this should be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the requirement of law.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, held that since the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate did not call upon the appellant at any point of time to file objections to the closure report and no notice whatsoever was issued by the court to the appellant before accepting the final report, the order issued by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate directing the closure of the case stands vitiated.

The case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police was cited by the court. In this case, it was held that the Magistrate has three recourses to adopt when it receives an investigation report stating that no offence has been committed- i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings ii) it may reject the report, take cognizance and issue process iii) he may direct the investigating body to conduct further investigation. In this case, it was held that if the Magistrate decided to choose the first recourse, and the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the case and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. The Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report. As per the law laid down in the Bhagwant Singh case, the issuance of a notice by the Magistrate to the informant at the time of consideration of the final report is a “must”. This binding precedent laid down by the court in the Bhagwant Singh case was not followed by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate while accepting the closure report filed by the CBI and hence this omission vitiates the order of the learned court.

The appellant had communicated to the Director, CBI, as many as six vital points that the CBI had left out during its investigation and requested for reinvestigation of the case. The CBI withheld this important document from the Magistrate while filing the closure report on February 24, 1995. This withholding creates doubt in the mind of the court about the fairness on the part of the investigating officer while undertaking the investigations. Had the court known about this letter addressed to the CBI by the UPSC, it may have not agreed to drop the proceedings altogether. This also renders the order of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate bad.

The rejection of the petitions filed by the UPSC in the court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate and also the Ist Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by stating that it was not in their jurisdiction to review an earlier order was also erroneous. They did not have to ‘review’ the order. They just had to order further investigation into the case which they could have done, had they not overlooked the provisions of Section 173(8) of CrPC which enables them to do so.

The Vth Metropolitan Magistrate himself did not call upon the UPSC to file objections and the issuance of the notice by the CBI to the appellant could not act as a substitute for the notice that should have been issued by him. The Magistrate could not in any event ‘delegate’ to the investigating agency its function of issuing notice.

Thus, the order of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate dated March 16, 1995, for the acceptance of the final report and the dropping of the criminal proceedings stands bad. The Court directed the CBI to further investigate the case keeping in mind the points raised by the UPSC but the investigation was to be carried out by a different investigating officer. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall direct CBI in this regard and aid it to carry out the investigation expeditiously and in accordance with the law in light of the observations made by the Court.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that since no notice was issued by the Magistrate to the appellant before accepting the final report by the CBI and deciding not to take cognizance of the case and drop proceedings, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate was not justified in accepting the final report of the CBI and closing of the case without any notice to the appellant and behind its back. The CBI was directed to further investigate into the case keeping in mind the points raised by the UPSC before filing a closure report in the court of the learned Magistrate.

This article is written by Vaanika Singhal of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya