Common Cause And Others v. Union Of India And Others

(2017) 11 SCC 747

Order dated 19-11-2012

(Before R.M Lodha and Anil R. Dave, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

1. Some of the issues raised in this writ petition are already under consideration by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012 titled Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary. The present writ petition has raised some additional issues and prayed for additional reliefs.

2. Having regard to above, issue notice to Respondents 1 and 2. Mr D.S Mahra, Advocate, accepts notice for Respondent 1, and Mr B.V Balaram Das, Advocate, accepts notice for Respondent 2. Response by Respondents 1 and 2 may be filed within eight weeks.

3. List the writ petition on 24-1-2013 along with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012.

(2017) 11 SCC 748

Order dated 10-9-2013

(Before R.M Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 429, 498, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

4. Arguments on two queries put to the learned Attorney General on 10-7-2013 concluded. Order reserved.

5. With regard to certain changes in the administrative arrangements, namely, (i) writing of ACR of Director of Prosecution, (ii) writing of ACR of Law Officers by Director of Prosecution in consultation with Joint Director concerned, CBI, and (iii) power to conduct DPC (for Inspector to DySP) to Director, CBI, the learned Attorney General submits that appropriate administrative order will be issued within two weeks.

6. We accept the statement of the learned Attorney General as in our opinion these changes will help in effective discharge of functions by CBI.

7. As regards certain other non-statutory changes in the administrative arrangements, particularly, (one) Director, CBI be vested with ex officio powers of Secretary of the Government of India reporting directly to the Minister, Department of Personnel and Training and (two) power to appoint Special Counsel/Retainer Counsel for CBI, the learned Attorney General needs some time to seek instructions. We accordingly direct that this aspect will be considered on 29-10-2013.

8. List the matters on 29-10-2013 at 2 p.m

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 19069 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

9. By this criminal miscellaneous petition, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has prayed that it may be allowed to add three more investigating officers to the present team of 36 officers. The reason for the addition of three officers is to strengthen the investigating team to complete the investigation within the proposed time-frame. The names of three officers who are to be added have been given to us in a sealed cover along with their CVs.

10. We are satisfied that Prayer (a) made in the petition may be granted. Accordingly, we allow CBI to add three more investigating officers to the existing team of 36 officers as per the names disclosed at p. 2 of the “Note of Administrative Issues”.

11. The criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

12. Arguments of Mr Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-in-Person, heard in part.

13. For further arguments, list this writ petition tomorrow i.e 11-9-2013 along with WPs (C) Nos. 463, 429, 498 and 515 of 2012 and WP (C) No. 283 of 2013.

(2017) 11 SCC 749

Order dated 10-2-2014

(Before R.M Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

14. In the course of consideration of these matters, the issue cropped up with regard to scope of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short “the CVC Act”) particularly clauses (a), (b) and (e) of sub-section (1) thereof and Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short “the DSPE Act”).

15. Let notice be issued to the Central Vigilance Commission, Respondent 3 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 limited to the above extent returnable on 10-3-2014. Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process, is permitted.

16. Pursuant to the order dated 29-8-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 711, status report has been submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with regard to inquiries/investigation done up to December 2013. It transpires from the status report that up to December 2013 inquiry in respect of 87 companies has been finalised in PE-2 by order of the competent authority and, out of these, 13 regular cases were registered for investigation and the investigation is in progress. In addition to 87 companies, inquiries in respect of 38 companies has been concluded and it is stated that reports are in process of scrutiny for getting the final order from the competent authority.

17. Inquiry reports pertaining to 24 companies are being attended to at the level of Chief Inquiry Officer. Insofar as field inquiry is concerned, it is reported that field inquiry pertaining to 149 companies has been completed out of 169 companies and field inquiry pertaining to remaining 20 companies including ultra-mega power project (UMPP) and coal to liquid (CTL) is in progress.

18. Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for CBI, submits that inquires and investigation in other PEs and all RCs shall be completed by 30-4-2014. Mr Amarendra Sharan further submits that in 6 RCs wherein investigation is complete, final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be filed before the appropriate court within three weeks from today. We record and accept the statement of the learned Senior Counsel which obviously is made on instructions.

19. As regards State PSUs pertaining to PE-5, we are informed that many States have not so far given their consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Since this Court is monitoring the investigation being done by CBI in respect of allocation of coal blocks, formal consent of the States concerned which have not given their consent so far is dispensed with in light of the decision of this Court in State of W.B v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571.

20. List the matters on 10-3-2014 at 2 p.m for hearing all concerned on the scope of Section 8 of the CVC Act and Section 4 of the DSPE Act and also on the status report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3505 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

21. By this application made by CBI, it is prayed that CBI may be permitted to share necessary information with other courts while dealing with miscellaneous applications/matters ancillary to the investigation in a sealed cover. CBI also prays that permission may be granted to it to appoint two advocates whose names are disclosed in the sealed cover for handling the matters referred to in the application and permission to share necessary information with them.

22. Having regard to the earlier orders passed by this Court on 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703, 29-8-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 711 and 29-10-2013 (2014) 3 SCC 170 and the difficulty being faced by CBI in the matters referred to in the application, we are satisfied that permission may be granted to CBI to share necessary information with other court(s) while dealing with miscellaneous applications/matters ancillary to the investigation in a sealed cover and only for the perusal of the court concerned. We order accordingly.

23. CBI is also permitted to appoint two advocates, namely, Mr Amit Anand Tiwari and Mr Sanchit Guru for handling matters referred to in the application and to share necessary information with them.

24. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3505 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.

(2017) 11 SCC 750

Order dated 10-3-2014

(Before R.M Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

25. On the scope of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, particularly clauses (a), (b) and (e) of sub-section (1) thereof and Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, although preliminary comments of Mr Anil B. Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the Central Vigilance Commission, Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012, have been heard, but full hearing in this regard could not be completed.

26. List the matters on 28-3-2014 at 2 p.m

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4339 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

27. Let CBI respond to the application within fifteen days. List this application on 28-3-2014.

Interlocutory Applications Nos. 7 and 8 of 2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

28. Having regard to the issue raised in these interlocutory applications, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if the applicant files substantive writ petition for redressal of his grievances.

29. In the light of the above, Mr K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, seeks withdrawal of these interlocutory applications to enable the applicant to pursue his appropriate remedy.

30. Interlocutory Applications Nos. 7 and 8 of 2014 are permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5962 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

31. For filing final report(s) under Section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to 6 RCs wherein investigation is complete, as observed in the order dated 10-2-2014, time is extended up to 28-3-2014. In other words, three weeks' time granted in para 5 (herein para 18) of the order dated 10-2-2014 is extended up to 28-3-2014.

32. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of as above.

(2017) 11 SCC 751

Order dated 28-3-2014

(Before R.M Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

33. In the course of hearing on the scope of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short “the 2003 Act”), particularly clauses (a), (b) and (e) of sub-section (1) thereof and Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short “the DSPE Act”), Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) handed over a written note. Besides the legal arguments submitted in the note, it is stated in Para 11 that CBI is ready to submit report/closure of all cases to this Court with a copy to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and CVC may in turn can give its comments to this Court. However, this may not be treated as precedent for CBI. Mr Amarendra Sharan submits orally that by the expression “court cases” in Para 11 is meant for closure of preliminary enquiries. He further submits that till date, there are 20 matters where the inquiry officers recommended regular cases but CBI head office ordered otherwise. A compilation thereof was handed over by Mr Amarendra Sharan to us in the Court.

34. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 104, generally described as 2G case, this Court considered the scope of Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(e) of the 2003 Act and Section 4(1) of the DSPE Act and observed in paras 11 and 12 as under:

“11. A combined reading of the directions given by this Court in Vineet Narain case (1998) 1 SCC 226 and Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(e) of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the Central Vigilance Commission is required to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in matters relating to the investigation of offences allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 2003 Act is charged at the same trial and give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under Section 4(1) of the 1946 Act. However, in view of proviso to Section 8(1)(b) of the 2003 Act the Central Vigilance Commission cannot, while exercising the power of superintendence under clause (a) or giving directions under clause (b), direct the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner. In other words, the power of superintendence cannot be used by the Central Vigilance Commission for interfering with the manner and method of investigation or consideration of any case by CBI in a particular manner.

12. Although, initially CBI may not have taken up the matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after 16-12-2010 it has satisfactorily conducted the investigation. Therefore, there is no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise the further investigation being conducted by CBI and other agencies. However, keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner appointed under Section 3(2) of the 2003 Act to render assistance to the Court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the case. This course will be perfectly in tune with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the 2003 Act.”

35. Following the above, in para 13, the Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation case (2012) 3 SCC 104 gave the following directions:

“(i) In future copies of the report(s) of the investigation conducted by CBI and other agencies shall be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes.

(ii) Within next one week the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine the report(s) and send their observations/suggestions to this Court in sealed envelopes which shall be considered along with the report(s) of CBI and other investigating agencies.”

36. Having regard to all the aspects of the matter, particularly that the investigation into the allocation of coal blocks is conducted by CBI and being monitored by this Court and that there are matters where the inquiry officers have recommended regular cases to be filed on conclusion of preliminary enquiries but CBI head office has ordered otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that if the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioners appointed under Section 3(2) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 are requested to render assistance to this Court, then that may facilitate this Court in effectively monitoring the investigation being conducted by CBI.

37. This also meets the accord of CBI and so also Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Common Cause and Mr Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-in-Person.

38. We, accordingly, direct that Mr Ravi Kant, DIG, CBI shall make available three copies of the compilation of the matters as on date where the inquiry officers recommended regular cases to be filed on conclusion of preliminary enquiries but CBI head office had ordered otherwise to the CVC in a sealed cover within five days from today. The compilation/reports, so submitted by CBI, shall be examined by the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioners (besides them none else) and they shall send their observations/suggestions to this Court in three sealed covers within four weeks from the date of receipt of the above compilation/reports. After the observations/suggestions are received from the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioners in sealed covers, the same shall be placed before this Court for consideration along with the reports of CBI. We clarify that if there are queries by the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioners in respect of the compilation/reports submitted by CBI and/or they require any material from CBI, the same may be communicated to CBI and upon receipt of such communication, within three days CBI shall supply the material to CVC as per requisition.

39. A note has been filed by CBI through Mr Ravi Kant, DIG in which it is stated that in compliance with the order dated 10-2-2014, the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC has been filed in 4 RCs (2 charge-sheeted and 2 closure reports) and as regards 2 RCs (RC 219 2012 E0008 dated 3-9-2012 and RC 219 2012 E0010 dated 3-9-2012) wherein closure has been recommended, it has been felt that further investigation is required on certain points and evidence is also required to be assessed afresh in the light of the opinion of the Special Senior Counsel for CBI. It is, therefore, prayed that two weeks' further time would be required to complete the investigation in abovereferred 2 RCs.

40. As prayed, time is granted up to 15-4-2014 for completion of task in 2 RCs (RC 219 2012 E0008 dated 3-9-2012 and RC 219 2012 E0010 dated 3-9-2012).

41. Both CBI and ED shall submit the latest status reports of the affairs up to 30-4-2014 on or before 6-5-2014.

42. List this group of matters on 7-5-2014 at 2 p.m

Crl. MP No. 4339 of 2014 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

43. Mr Paras Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Income Tax prays for withdrawal of Crl. MP No. 4339 of 2014 to enable the applicant to make fresh application.

44. Crl. MP No. 4339 of 2014 is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

(2017) 11 SCC 754

Order dated 7-5-2014

(Before R.M Lodha, C.J and Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

Crl. MP No. 7979 of 2014 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

45. For the reasons stated in the application, the Central Vigilance Commissioner Mr Pradeep Kumar is allowed to recuse himself from examination of compilation/reports submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation in pursuance of the order dated 28-3-2014. As a matter of fact, intention to the above effect was indicated orally on 7-4-2014.

46. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7979 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012; WPs (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

47. List these matters tomorrow i.e 8-5-2014 at 3 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 755(1)

Order dated 8-5-2014

(Before R.M Lodha, C.J and Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

48. At the outset, a Note on Administrative Issues signed by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was placed before us. It is stated therein that due to aspersion cast on personal and professional integrity of Shri O.P Galhotra, Joint Director, he has requested for recusal from all matters directly and indirectly connected with the preliminary enquiries (PEs) relating to coal block allocations and the consequent regular cases (RCs). It is stated that in the interest of avoiding needless controversy, the same has been accepted.

49. Since Shri O.P Galhotra has sought recusal himself from the coal block cases which has been accepted by the Director, CBI, nothing further needs to be said by us, except observing that recusal of Shri O.P Galhotra shall not be treated as adverse comment or observation on his personal and professional integrity and competency in any manner whatsoever.

50. In Para 8 of the Note, it is stated that CBI is ready to submit files relating to all the PEs completed so far to the scrutiny of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) over and above the 25 cases which were submitted to CVC on the directions of this Court.

51. Having regard to the readiness expressed by CBI, we direct that files relating to all the PEs completed so far shall be submitted to the scrutiny of the two Vigilance Commissioners. The Vigilance Commissioners shall submit their report to this Court within six weeks of receipt of the files from CBI relating to PEs.

52. List the matters on 8-7-2014 at 2 p.m

53. CBI will submit further report of the status obtaining till 30-6-2014 latest by 7-7-2014. The Enforcement Directorate shall also file report obtaining till 30-6-2014 latest by 7-7-2014.

(2017) 11 SCC 755(2)

Order dated 8-7-2014

(Before R.M Lodha, C.J and Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

54. On 8-5-2014, Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted that CBI was ready to submit files relating to all PEs completed so far to the scrutiny of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) over and above the 25 cases which were submitted to CVC on the directions of this Court.

55. Having regard to the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel for CBI, the Court directed that files relating to all PEs completed so far shall be submitted to the scrutiny of the two Vigilance Commissioners. The Vigilance Commissioners shall submit their report to this Court within six weeks of receipt of the files from CBI relating to PEs.

56. In compliance with the above, two reports have been submitted by the Vigilance Commissioners, one dated 9-5-2014 and other dated 2-7-2014.

57. From the two reports, it transpires that Vigilance Commissioners in certain cases have agreed with the recommendation of the CIO/SP and disagreed with CBI headquarters and recommended registration of regular cases under relevant provisions.

58. Registry is directed to supply copy of the reports dated 9-5-2014 and 2-7-2014 submitted by the Vigilance Commissioners to the Director, CBI. The Director, CBI shall act in accordance with the above reports. The reports will be supplied in a sealed cover to the Director, CBI. The original reports will be kept back in a sealed cover.

59. A note on administrative issues has been submitted on behalf of CBI. It is stated therein that Mr V. Murugesan, one of the DIGs who was asked to supervise PE-5 had applied for repatriation while in final year of his approved tenure of 5 years w.e.f 31-5-2014. His request has been considered favourably by the competent authority. It is also stated that Mr V. Murugesan continues with the supervision of the above enquiry/investigation. PE-5 involves enquiry of 100 blocks. At present, the enquiry is complete in respect of 53 blocks. The enquiry is likely to be completed in another 3 months. It is stated that Mr V. Murugesan is proposed to be considered for repatriation back to his cadre only after completion of above enquiry/investigation and after taking permission of this Court.

60. It is directed that until above enquiry/investigation is completed by Mr V. Murugesan, he will not be repatriated back to his cadre. The time for completion of enquiry sought for in the administrative note is granted.

61. Para 4 (herein para 51) of the order dated 8-5-2014 shall continue to apply to PEs completed from time to time after 8-5-2014 wherever CBI has decided not to file regular case.

62. List this group of matters on 18-7-2014 at 2 p.m for consideration of the status report dated 7-7-2014 filed by CBI and Enforcement Directorate's report dated 7-7-2014.

(2017) 11 SCC 757(1)

Order dated 19-9-2014

(Before R.M Lodha, C.J and Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.)

IA No. 13 of 2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

63. List Interlocutory Applications Nos. 13 and 19 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 on 17-10-2014 along with the main matter being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012 and other connected matters.

(2017) 11 SCC 757(2)

Order dated 8-12-2014

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 13 and 19, 20-31 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 515 of 2012, 283 of 2013, Crl. MPs Nos. 24056-63 and 24134 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

64. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed a note on administrative issues:

64.1 The first issue relates to the extension of the deputation tenure of Shri Bodh Raj, Inspector and Shri J.R Katiyar, Inspector. It is stated that their services are required in CBI but CISF has expressed its inability in granting an extension of the deputation tenure of these officers. We are of the opinion that in view of the advance stage of investigations and the requirement of public interest, the extension of deputation tenure of these two officers in CBI should continue until further orders. CISF may be informed accordingly by the Director, CBI of the contents of this order.

64.2 The second issue is about the disassociation of a Deputy Superintendent of Police with CBI. It is stated that his request for transfer on compassionate grounds may be considered, particularly since the assignment entrusted to him has since been completed. No replacement is required by CBI. Accordingly, since the request is reasonable, it is acceded to, as prayed for.

64.3 The third issue is with regard to the replacement of an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Having considered the material on record, we are of the view that the request is reasonable and is accordingly acceded to, as prayed for.

64.4 The last issue is with regard to the replacement of the Additional Legal Advisor who has since retired. We are of the view that the request is reasonable and is accordingly acceded to, as prayed for.

65. This disposes of the administrative issues raised by CBI.

66. It is submitted by Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel, that the Special Public Prosecutor Mr R.S Cheema, Senior Advocate, does not have any adequate space in the Patiala House Courts where the matters are being considered by the Special Judge.

67. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi to take up the matter with the District Judge concerned so that adequate office space is provided to Mr R.S Cheema, Senior Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor, so that he is in a position to attend to the matters without any difficulty.

IA No. 11 (for impleadment by Tata Steel Ltd.)

68. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 12 (for impleadment by M/s OCL Ltd.)

69. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 14 (for impleadment by Odisha Power Generation Corpn. Ltd.)

70. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 15 (for impleadment by M/s Tata Sponge Iron Ltd.)

71. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 16 (for impleadment by D.B Power Ltd.)

72. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 17 (for impleadment by M/s Rathi Steel & Power Ltd.)

73. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 18 (for impleadment by Prism Cement Ltd.)

74. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 24 (for impleadment by Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.)

75. No one appears on behalf of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

IAs Nos. 20-23 and Crl. MP No. 24063 [by BLA Industries (P) Ltd.]

76. The learned counsel for the applicant would like to place additional documents on record. Leave granted. The matters stand adjourned to 16-12-2014 at 2 p.m

IAs Nos. 25, 26 and 29

77. These applications pertain to underground mines and payment of Rs 295 per metric tonne of coal extracted by them.

78. We have heard the learned Attorney General as well as the learned counsel for the parties. There is no merit in these applications. The applications are dismissed.

IAs Nos. 27, 28 and 31 and Crl. MPs Nos. 24056-60

79. The applications are for excluding some coal blocks from the operation of the judgment of this Court. The applications have no merit and are dismissed.

Crl. MP No. 24134

80. The application is dismissed.

IA No. 13

81. We have perused the appraisal report of the Income Tax Department handed over by the learned Attorney General on the last date of hearing.

82. We close the matter. No further orders are required on the appraisal reports.

83. The reports have been returned to the learned Attorney General in the Court.

84. List IA No. 13 on 12-1-2015 at 2 p.m

WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

85. The status report has been filed by CBI with regard to PE-2/12 (pertaining to the period 2006-2009).

86. Inquiry has been completed in respect of 166 out of 168 companies. 27 regular cases have been registered and where the cases have not been registered, the files have been sent to CVC.

87. It is stated that the Special Judge has required further investigation/progress report in five cases and the progress report will be submitted to the Special Judge on the date fixed.

88. In regard to seven cases, orders of this Court are required. The orders as solicited in the progress report are granted to CBI.

89. With regard to PE-4 (for the period from 1993 to 2005), this deals with 43 coal block allocations.

90. In earlier reports, CBI had stated that investigations with regard to 33 coal blocks have been completed and 10 are pending.

91. Presently, it is stated that out of 10 which are pending, RCs have been filed in two cases and one RC is under preparation.

92. Four cases have been closed and the files have been submitted to CVC for consideration. Three more cases are being enquired into.

93. It is stated that investigations will be closed in some of the cases by 31-1-2015 and in other cases by 31-3-2015.

94. We expect CBI to stick to the date mentioned in the status report.

PE-6 (Missing files and documents relating to PE-4/12)

95. It is stated that a detailed report is being prepared and will be submitted to CVC.

PE-5 (Allocation of coal blocks through the government dispensation route)

96. It is stated in the status report that inquiry in respect of two coal blocks, namely, Naini jointly allocated to Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn. and Pondicherry Industrial Development Corpn. and Morga II allocated to Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn. cannot be completed for want of documents from the Government of Gujarat.

97. It is stated that despite repeated written and oral reminders, the documents have not been provided so far by the Government of Gujarat.

98. A direction is issued to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Gujarat to cooperate with CBI in the investigations. We expect the Chief Secretary and the Government of Gujarat to comply with the requisition made by CBI without further delay.

WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

99. We have gone through the status of the investigations filed by the Directorate of Enforcement from 1-7-2014 to 31-8-2014 (4th report) and for the period from 1-9-2014 to 3-12-2014 (5th report). We find, on a perusal of the report, that the Directorate of Enforcement has not been provided some information by CBI from 2-6-2014 onwards.

100. We expect CBI to render effective assistance to the Directorate of Enforcement and furnish the information and documents as requested.

101. We also find on a perusal of the 5th report that some paragraphs are vague and up-to-date information has not been furnished in the status report. The status report filed before this Court should be meticulously examined before it is filed and up-to-date information should be given.

102. Finally, summons issued to persons whose statements are to be recorded should be followed up by the Directorate of Enforcement diligently.

103. Note on further progress should be filed by CBI as well as by the Directorate of Enforcement by 5-2-2015.

104. List the matter on 9-2-2015 at 2 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 760

Order dated 12-1-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IA No. 13 of 2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012 with Crl. MP No. 387 of 2015 and Writ Petition (Cri) No. 120 of 2012

IA No. 13 of 2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

105. Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel has handed over a short note on behalf of the petitioners. Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel would like to look into the aforesaid note.

106. The application be listed along with the secret notes on IA filed by CBI on 8-5-2014 and 18-9-2014 on 16-2-2015 at 2.00 p.m

Crl. MP No. 387 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

107. List the Crl. MP on 16-2-2015 at 2.00 p.m

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 and Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

108. We have perused the sealed report filed by the Central Vigilance Commission on 29-12-2014. The report be taken on record.

109. On 8-12-2014 (at para 98, herein), we had issued a direction that the Chief Secretary of the Government of Gujarat shall cooperate with CBI in the investigations, but we are told by Mr Sharan that in spite of our order and various requests having been made by CBI, there is no response from the State of Gujarat and the documents have not been handed over.

110. Issue notice to the Chief Secretary of the State of Gujarat to explain as to why cooperation is not being extended to CBI in the investigations.

111. Notice is returnable on 9-2-2015.

(2017) 11 SCC 761

Order dated 9-2-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

112. A Note on the administrative issues dated 9-2-2015 has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for CBI in Court today.

113. The first request that has been made is that one Deputy Superintendent of Police may be disassociated with the investigation for reasons spelt out in the Note. It is further stated that no substitution is required in place of this officer. The said request is acceded.

114. The second request is that since Shri O.P Galhotra has recused from the coal block cases and his recusal has been accepted by the Director, CBI, it is now necessary to appoint some other Joint Director of the zone in his place. The Note has recommended the name of a particular officer, whose curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix 3 to the Note. We have gone through the Note as well as the curriculum vitae of the officer and we accept the request made by the Director, CBI. One of the reasons given for bringing the officer in place of Shri O.P Galhotra is a fact that the volume of work has increased and it is necessary to have one Joint Director of the zone in his place.

115. This disposes of the Note on Administrative Issues dated 9-2-2015.

116. We have seen the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat. He submits in his affidavit that there was some lack of communication. However, he has tendered apology and has also stated that all the relevant files have been handed over to CBI. This is also affirmed by the learned counsel appearing for CBI.

117. Under the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed on this affidavit.

118. The learned counsel appearing for CBI submits that in terms of our order dated 8-12-2014 (at paras 66, 67, herein), adequate space is now being provided to the Special Public Prosecutor by the District Judge, Patiala House Courts.

119. CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement have filed the progress reports.

120. List these matters with the progress reports filed by CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement on 23-2-2015 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 762

Order dated 9-3-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 with Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 463, 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013

121. We have gone through the report dated 19-1-2015 filed by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). It is reported that the CVC has given its observations on:

(i) 30-4-2014 in respect of 17 cases,

(ii) 9-5-2014 in respect of 8 cases,

(iii) 2-7-2014 in respect of 56 cases,

(iv) 18-7-2014 in respect of 47 cases,

(v) 6-8-2014 in respect of 57 cases,

(vi) 26-8-2014 in respect of 31 cases,

(vii) 29-8-2014 in respect of 4 cases, and

(viii) 29-12-2014 in respect of 26 cases.

122. In the report dated 19-1-2015, the CVC has reported that they have received a report from CBI in respect of four coal blocks. In respect of one of them, the CVC has opined that a regular case should be registered and in respect of three cases, the CVC has allowed the matter to rest.

123. We have also gone through the report of the CVC dated 5-2-2015. This report pertains to three coal blocks and the CVC has reported that the matter may be allowed to rest in respect of these three cases in agreement with the view expressed by CBI.

124. We have also gone through the 6th report of the Directorate of Enforcement pertaining to the period from 4-12-2014 to 3-2-2015.

125. The Directorate of Enforcement had earlier reported that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was filed in respect of 19 companies under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It is now reported that 18 regular cases have been received from CBI including some cases in which the closure report has not been accepted by the Special Judge. Out of these 18 cases, 17 are being scrutinised under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and one is being examined for registration of ECIR.

126. The learned Senior Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement submits that in respect of all 18 cases, it has been decided to register ECIR for the purposes of further investigations. It is reported that in all 35 cases have been examined by the Directorate of Enforcement.

127. We have also gone through the report submitted by CBI as on 4-2-2015 in respect of PE-02/2012 and regular cases pertaining to the period 2006 to 2009 covering 168 companies. It is reported that 27 regular cases had been registered. It is also reported that final reports have been filed in respect of 10 cases and the Special Judge is seized of these cases. It is further reported that RC 219 2012 E0007 dated 10-6-2013 is presently with the Special Public Prosecutor; RC 219 2013 E0006 dated 10-6-2013 is pending with the competent authority; RC 219 2013 E0003 dated 25-4-2013 is also pending with the Special Public Prosecutor; RC 219 2012 E0015 dated 13-10-2012 is awaiting a response to the letters rogatory that has been issued.

128. In respect of 13 regular cases being RC 219 2014 E0012 to E0025 (pertaining to the period from July 2014 to September 2014), it has been reported that they are under investigation. There is no report with regard to RC 219 2014 E0013. CBI should include this in the next report.

129. With regard to PE-4 relating to 43 coal block allocations made during 1993 to 2005, it was earlier reported that investigations are complete in respect of 33 coal blocks and with respect to the remaining cases, regular cases have been filed in two of them, one regular case was pending, four were closed and reports sent to the CVC and in respect of the balance three, enquiries are still continuing.

130. With regard to four cases that were sent to the CVC, it has now been reported by the CVC in its report dated 19-1-2015 that three of them have been closed and regular case has been directed to be registered in respect of one of those cases.

131. In the report dated 4-2-2015, CBI has reported that with regard to one regular case that was pending, it has been decided to register a regular case and with regard to three cases that were being inquired into, it has been decided to file regular case in respect of one of them and two of them are pending with the competent authority.

132. In respect of PE-6 relating to missing files and documents, CBI has sought permission to send the reports to the CVC. The permission as prayed for is granted. The CVC may examine the material submitted by CBI and submit a report to this Court. With regard to PE-5 relating to allocation of coal blocks to the Government Dispensation Route, 101 coal companies are under investigation, out of which 75 pertain to PSUs and the State Governments.

133. CBI has reported that in respect of 89 of them, the enquiry has been completed and regular case has been registered in respect of one of them and 80 of them have been sent to the CVC while 8 of them are still pending with the officers in CBI. It is informed today that in respect of these 8 cases, the officers have concluded the investigation. With regard to the remaining 12, enquiries are in progress, including 2 pertaining to the State of Gujarat.

134. On the last date of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for CBI had informed us that all the necessary papers had been received from the Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat on 28-1-2015 and these cases are under scrutiny.

135. The Registry is directed to supply a copy each of the reports dated 19-1-2015, 5-2-2015 and earlier reports filed by the CVC to CBI for necessary action including registration of cases by CBI in accordance with the view expressed by the CVC.

136. This order is being passed in conformity with our earlier order dated 8-7-2014. To be listed on 27-4-2015 for further directions. However, no status report on the investigations need be filed on that date.

(2017) 11 SCC 764(1)

Order dated 16-3-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IA No. 13 and Crl. MP No. 387 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

137. During the course of his submissions, Mr Sharan, learned Senior Counsel referred to a note dated 18-9-2014 that was submitted by him in a sealed cover.

138. Mr Sharan stated during the course of his submissions that he has no objection if the note is handed over to Mr Prashant Bhushan provided he keeps it with him only and does not share the same with anybody either in his office or outside the office. Mr Sharan has handed over a copy of this note to Mr Prashant Bhushan for his personal perusal.

139. List IA No. 13 and Crl. MP No. 387 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012 on 23-3-2015 at 2.00 p.m List also IA No. 35 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012 on 23-3-2015 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 764(2)

Order dated 6-7-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 13 and 35 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

Crl. MP No. … of 2015 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 (filed in sealed cover)

140. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Permission is granted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to forward the proposals as proposed for issuance of letters rogatory as per the prescribed procedure to the Ministry of Home Affairs for getting the requisite concurrence. Crl. MP is disposed of accordingly.

IA No. 13 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

141. The order dated 13-4-2015 is not on record. The Registry is directed to ensure that all orders are placed on record chronologically. Since the order dated 13-4-2015 is not on record, we have no other option but to adjourn the matter for the next date of hearing.

142. List IA No. 13 on 13-7-2015 at 2.00 p.m The Registry will also circulate the note dated 6-4-2015 filed by CBI on legal issues and the progress report as on 30-6-2015 filed by CBI in the Court today. It has been clarified by Mr Sharan appearing for CBI that RC 219 2014 E0013 referred to in the order dated 9-3-2015 (at para 128, herein) does not pertain to coal allocation and that is the reason why no report was filed in that regard. A detailed progress report should be filed by CBI and the Enforcement Directorate before 10-7-2015.

IA No. 35 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

143. Issue notice. Mr Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of CBI and Enforcement Directorate.

144. Replies be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after six weeks.

(2017) 11 SCC 765

Order dated 20-7-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IA No. 13 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

IA No. 13 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

145. The learned Attorney General appearing for the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) says that he has been in touch with Mr M.L Sharma, former Special Director, CBI and he has agreed to take up the assignment. He says that Mr Sharma will require assistance in the task and it will take some time for him to suggest the names of some persons who can give him effective assistance in the matter.

146. The application is, therefore, adjourned to 10-8-2015 at 2.00 p.m to discuss the names and modalities of carrying out the task.

Note dated 6-4-2015

147. This Note dated 6-4-2015 pertains to the legal issues filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

148. CBI has filed an FIR in respect of Regular Case (RC) No. 3. When RC was forwarded to the Court of the Special Judge, the learned Special Judge expressed his reservation in an order passed on 27-3-2015 in accepting the FIR on the ground that the violation had taken place after the allocation of coal blocks to Government PSUs and, therefore, he perhaps had no jurisdiction to look into the matter. It is in this context that CBI has requested for a clarification.

149. We have gone through our order dated 18-7-2014 (2015) 13 SCC 35 in which we had requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to nominate an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service to deal with and exclusively try the offences pertaining to coal block allocation matters under the Penal Code, 1860, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and other allied offences.

150. Pursuant to our order dated 18-7-2014 (2015) 13 SCC 35, the Lt. Governor issued a Notification dated 8-8-2014 appointing Mr Bharat Parashar, an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service as a Special Judge to deal with and exclusively try the offences pertaining to coal block allocation matters. In our opinion, the notification is wide enough to cover the statutes and offences under the statutes mentioned in our order dated 18-7-2014 (2015) 13 SCC 35 including allied statutes. The notification read with our order dated 18-7-2014 (2015) 13 SCC 35 is wide enough to cover all issues arising out of the preliminary enquiries pending before the learned Special Judge, whether they relate to pre-allocation period or post-allocation period and whether they relate to offences mentioned in our order dated 18-7-2014 (2015) 13 SCC 35 or allied statutes. Accordingly, in our opinion, the learned Special Judge would have jurisdiction to deal with RC No. 3 of 2014 filed before him by CBI.

151. This disposes of the Note on legal issues dated 6-4-2015.

Progress report dated 30-6-2015

152. We have gone through the progress report in PE-219 2012 E 0002 and RCs arising out of it as on 30-6-2015 filed by CBI. This report pertains to allocation of coal blocks during 2006-2009. It appears from the report that enquiries are pending in respect of the two companies. Today it is stated before us by Mr Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of CBI that the enquiries are now complete and the report has been submitted to the senior officer on 7-7-2015.

153. With regard to RCs arising out of PE-2, it is stated that 15 RCs have been registered by CBI on its own and 17 RCs have been registered on the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission. In respect of one company, some further clarifications have been requested from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). With regard to the status of RCs, it is stated that charge-sheet/closure report has been filed in respect of 13 companies, while field enquiries have been completed in respect of 19 companies. Field enquiries are pending in respect of six companies. With regard to preliminary enquiry on missing documents pertaining to PE-2, it is stated that enquiry has been completed, but we are told that the matter is now pending with CVC. We request CVC to look into the pending matters at the earliest and submit a report in this regard.

154. With regard to the letters rogatory, no further orders are required to be passed, as these have already been considered earlier and appropriate orders passed.

155. This disposes of the progress report dated 30-6-2015.

Report dated 10-7-2015

156. We have also gone through the “Note on progress in preliminary enquiries on regular cases” filed on 10-7-2015.

PE 219 2012 E 0004 (allocation of coal blocks during 1993 to 2005)

157. This covers 43 coal block allocations.

158. Enquiry is pending in respect of two coal block allocations and it is expected to be completed within a period of one month. Mr Sharan says that his estimate is that it will take more than one month. We grant two months' time for this purpose, not more.

159. Enquiry has been completed with regard to 41 coal blocks and 9 RCs have been registered in respect of 12 coal blocks. In respect of one coal block, FIR was registered in 2010 i.e before the orders were passed by this Court.

160. With respect to 28 coal blocks, papers were sent to CVC and on the basis of the report having been received from CVC, 3 RCs have been registered in respect of 3 coal blocks and RCs are still to be registered in respect of two coal blocks. In respect of these, the learned counsel for CBI says that CBI will be seeking further guidance from CVC. These two coal blocks are in addition to the coal blocks mentioned in the report dated 30-6-2015 filed by CBI.

161. There is no clarity with regard to the remaining 23 coal blocks. Mr Sharan says that he will file a separate progress report in respect of these 23 coal blocks.

162. PE-221 2013 E 0006 relating to missing files has already been dealt with in respect of the progress report dated 30-6-2015.

PE 219 2012 E 0002 (allocation of coal blocks during 2006-2009)

163. This relates to 168 companies. Out of these, enquiry has been completed in respect of 166 companies and the CVC report has already been obtained in respect of these 166 companies. The matter relating to two companies (coal to liquid project) is pending at the supervisory level for a final decision.

164. It is stated that 32 RCs have been registered. FIRs have been filed in 13 cases and charge-sheets have been filed in respect of 8 cases while closure reports have been filed in respect of 5 cases. Investigation has been completed in 8 cases and they are pending appropriate action at the higher level. Letters rogatory have been sent in two cases.

165. Investigations are pending in 9 cases. It is stated by Mr Sharan that 5 of these were registered in 2015 while 4 were registered in 2014. CBI is directed to expedite completion of the enquiry/investigation in respect of these 9 cases and submit a progress report.

166. Over and above this, CVC has recommended registration of RCs in 6 cases. In respect of 5 of them, RCs have already been registered and in respect of 1 of them, as mentioned above, guidance has been sought from CVC.

PE 5 (allocations made on Government Dispensation Route)

167. This pertains to 101 coal blocks. Enquiries have been completed in respect of 89 coal blocks and 3 RCs have been registered pertaining to 8 coal blocks. In addition to the above, there was some jurisdictional doubt about one of the coal blocks, but that has been clarified by us today.

168. In respect of 80 coal blocks, no case has been made out. These were referred to CVC and CVC has concurred with the view of CBI and the matter has been closed in respect of these 80 coal blocks. With regard to 7 coal blocks, the final decision is pending with the head of zone. An enquiry with regard to 2 coal blocks has been delayed because the information was received somewhat late from the Government of Gujarat. Enquiry in respect of 3 coal blocks is pending. CBI is directed to complete the enquiry at the earliest and let us have the progress report on or before 17-9-2015.

169. List WP (C) No. 463 of 2012 with the reports filed by CBI and CVC on 21-9-2015 at 2.00 p.m

7th Progress Report dated 16-7-2015

170. This report filed by the Directorate of Enforcement pertains to the period from 4-2-2015 to 3-7-2015.

171. 35 cases have been taken up for consideration by the Directorate of Enforcement based on 37 RCs registered by CBI. Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) has been registered in respect of 34 cases and one case is pending investigation. The Directorate of Enforcement has received 8 more RCs from CBI in addition to the above and ECIR has been registered in 5 cases and while ECIR is likely to be registered in respect of 30 other cases. In other words, the total number of RCs received by the Directorate of Enforcement is 45 (37+8).

172. It is stated that three provisional attachment orders have been issued.

173. A reading of the report indicates that summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement could not be served in respect of some of the addressees. The Directorate of Enforcement should issue public notices, wherever necessary, at the earliest so that investigations are completed as soon as possible.

174. This disposes of the 7th Progress Report filed by the Directorate of Enforcement.

175. To come up for further consideration, the matter be listed on 21-9-2015 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 769

Order dated 7-9-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 13 and 35 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

IA No. 13

176. We have heard the learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India as well as Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

177. From the order passed on 14-5-2015 (2015) 6 SCC 332, it is quite clear that the inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the investigations conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation have been influenced in any manner by Mr Ranjit Sinha in respect of the accused in the Coal Block Allocation case. It was earlier suggested that Mr M.L Sharma (Retd.), former Special Director, CBI may be an appropriate person to conduct the inquiry. Pursuant to this learned Attorney General had spoken to Mr M.L Sharma and he had given his requirements for conducting the inquiry. We felt, prima facie, that the requirements were somewhat exaggerated, perhaps the scope of the inquiry may have been misunderstood by Mr Sharma.

178. The learned Attorney General has since spoken to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and has estimated that it may not take more than about 8 weeks to conclude the inquiry. If that is so, we request Mr M.L Sharma to reconsider the requirements given by him to the learned Attorney General. Prima facie, it appears that he may require assistance of two or three officers and perhaps two or three staff by way of secretarial assistance. The remuneration for Mr M.L Sharma, the officers (if retired officers) and for the secretarial staff (if retired staff) will be fixed by this Court taking into consideration the amount of work that may be involved. Needless to say, we expect the inquiry to be completed by Mr M.L Sharma between eight to twelve weeks. The learned Attorney General says that he will again speak to Mr M.L Sharma on this basis and get back to us on 14-9-2015. List the application on 14-9-2015 at 2.00 p.m

IA No. 35

179. List the application on 21-9-2015 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 770(1)

Order dated 14-9-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IA No. 13 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

180. The learned Attorney General has shown us a letter dated 14-9-2015 received from Mr M.L Sharma, former Special Director, CBI. The letter is taken on record. The requirements mentioned by Mr M.L Sharma appear to be quite reasonable and we accept the same as do the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

181. We are not inclined to fix a remuneration for the services of the retired officers at this stage. We would like to get an idea of the quantum of work and then fix the remuneration so that no inconvenience is caused to anybody.

182. The learned Attorney General assures us that all necessary arrangements for the supporting staff, office space, transport and infrastructural support, etc. will be made available to Mr Sharma and his colleagues. Mr Sharma will, of course, be entitled to have access to whatever records he feels are necessary for the purpose of the inquiry to be conducted in terms of our order dated 14-5-2015 (2015) 6 SCC 332. We make it clear that Mr Sharma will be entitled to summon any person for the purposes of conducting the inquiry.

183. As mentioned in our order dated 7-9-2015 (at para 178, herein), we expect the inquiry to be conducted between eight to twelve weeks. We are assured by the learned Attorney General that all necessary support will be provided forthwith. List the matter again on 16-11-2015 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 770(2)

Order dated 21-9-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012 with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012, Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 515 of 2012 and 283 of 2013, Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

184. The learned Attorney General has placed before us a letter dated 18-9-2015 issued by Mr T. Jacob, Additional Secretary in terms of order dated 14-9-2015. The letter states that the Department of Personnel and Training has made necessary arrangements for the proper conduct of the inquiry by Mr M.L Sharma, former Special Director, CBI.

185. The learned Attorney General says that he has orally been informed that Mr M.L Sharma requires one more room. He says that this request will be taken care of and adds that in case there is any further requirement of Mr Sharma, his office may get in touch with Mr T. Jacob. However, the inquiry may commence and proceed.

186. The letter dated 18-9-2015 along with enclosures and the assurance of the learned Attorney General are taken on record. We request Mr M.L Sharma to commence the inquiry.

Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2015 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

187. A common reply has been filed by alleged Contemnors 1, 3, 6 and 7. A response affidavit has also been filed by alleged Contemnor 4. The learned Attorney General says that he needs four weeks' time to file an affidavit in response to these affidavits.

188. The office report says that alleged Contemnor 2 has not been served but he has entered appearance through Ms Shally Bhasin, learned counsel. As far as alleged Contemnor 2 is concerned, the learned Attorney General says that he would like to look into the matter and the case of this alleged contemnor may be taken up along with WP (C) No. 463 of 2012. It is ordered accordingly.

189. Alleged Contemnor 5 has made the payment pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. The learned Attorney General does not press the contempt petition in respect of alleged Contemnor 5.

190. Time as prayed for by the learned Attorney General is granted. List the matter on 16-11-2015. The alleged contemnors are present in Court but they are exempted from their personal appearance until further orders.

IA No. 35

191. List the application on 12-10-2015 along with written submission dated 21-9-2015 (Birla Diary matter).

Progress reports

192. The Directorate of Enforcement has filed its 8th Progress Report on Investigation in the Cases of Allocation of Captive Coal Blocks. This will be taken up for consideration on 12-10-2015.

193. The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi has filed Progress Report No. 14 on progress in preliminary enquiries and regular cases. This will also be taken up on 12-10-2015.

Administrative issues

194. By Note on Administrative Issues dated 17-9-2015, CBI has sought leave for engaging the services of three experts from the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad in respect of certain issues. The curricula vitae of three officers have also been enclosed with the Note.

195. We have considered the request made by CBI and do not find any objection to acceding to the request made. CBI may take the assistance of the officers on technical issues. Note on Administrative Issues dated 17-9-2015 stands disposed of.

Note for directions

196. The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a note for directions to consult the Central Vigilance Commission to obtain their views and basis on which a regular case could be registered in respect of five coal blocks. Permission as prayed for is granted. The note stands disposed of.

197. Submission Note dated 21-9-2015 submitted by CBI regarding issuance of letters rogatory is taken on record.

198. Note on Administrative Issues dated 21-9-2015 should be listed again on 12-10-2015.

Sealed envelopes submitted by CVC

199. CVC has submitted a note in a sealed envelope with regard to missing files and documents of Ministry of Coal. This is with reference to letters dated 20-4-2015 and 21-7-2015 submitted by CBI. We would like to hear the learned Attorney General in respect of this note on 12-10-2015.

200. Another sealed envelope has been filed by CVC in response to a letter dated 24-8-2015 by CBI. We would like to hear the learned Attorney General in this regard also on 12-10-2015.

(2017) 11 SCC 772

Order dated 30-9-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

201. Pursuant to our order passed on 14-9-2015, a letter dated 25-9-2015 has been received from Mr M.L Sharma, former Special Director, CBI and Head of the Committee appointed by us, to have access to the original visitor's register maintained at the residence of Mr Ranjit Sinha, former Director, CBI along with the connected documents.

202. It has been brought to our notice that by an order dated 8-9-2014 in Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2015) 17 SCC 249, (2015) 17 SCC 282, the register was directed to be kept in a sealed cover. It was further directed that the Secretary General of this Court will keep the aforesaid documents in safe custody. It appears to us that the documents are required for the purposes of the inquiry to be conducted by Mr M.L Sharma and Mr Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI has no objection if these documents are handed over to Mr M.L Sharma. We are of the opinion that it will be appropriate if the documents are handed over to Mr M.L Sharma at the earliest. The relevant documents are the original visitor's register maintained at the residence of Mr Ranjit Sinha, former Director, CBI and the list of the names of 23 personnel and the names of four CBI constables working at the residential establishment of the Director, CBI. However, since there is an order passed by another Bench of this Court in this regard directing the documents to be kept in the sealed cover, we are of the opinion that this request of Mr M.L Sharma be placed before that Bench concerned for passing appropriate orders.

203. List the matter on 5-10-2015 before the Bench concerned.

(2017) 11 SCC 773(1)

Order dated 5-10-2015

(Before H.L Dattu, C.J and Amitava Roy, J.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

204. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr Ranjit Sinha, submits that when the order dated 30-9-2015 was passed, he was not heard in the matter. We are not expressing any opinion on the statement of the learned Senior Counsel. List the matter next week.

(2017) 11 SCC 773(2)

Order dated 12-10-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

IA No. 13 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

205. Letter received from Shri M.L Sharma, former Special Director, CBI.

206. This matter is placed before us as a result of an order dated 5-10-2015 passed by the Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr Justice Amitava Roy.

207. We have heard Mr Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr Ranjit Sinha, former Director, CBI. We find no reason to vary the earlier order passed by us on 30-9-2015. List the matter before the Bench concerned on Friday, 16-10-2015 for appropriate orders in terms of the order dated 30-9-2015.

IA No. 36 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

208. On the request of the learned Attorney General, list this application on 26-10-2015 at 2.00 p.m

IA No. 35 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

209. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written submissions given by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). From the written submissions, it appears that CBI has recovered certain documents, which have been detailed in the written submissions. We are not commenting whether these documents disclose any offence or not, since this is for CBI to decide. But if an offence does appear to have been made out, though unrelated to the coal block allocation cases that we are dealing with, we expect CBI to act on the information obtained from the documents and take appropriate necessary action in accordance with the law laid down by this Court and the provisions of the statutes, including the Criminal Procedure Code.

WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

210. The 8th Status Report on Investigation in the Cases of Allocation of Captive Coal Blocks filed on 17-9-2015 by the Directorate of Enforcement, the observations of CVC filed on 27-7-2015/28-7-2015 and on 3-9-2015 will be taken up on 30-11-2015 at 2.00 p.m

Note on Administrative Issues dated 21-9-2015 filed by CBI

211. We have gone through the Note on Administrative Issues dated 21-9-2015 and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On a consideration of the material that is placed before us, we permit the lateral deputation under the Central Staffing Scheme of Shri P.V Hari Krishna. On the same being accepted by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Shri P.V Hari Krishna will stand disassociated with the coal inquiry/investigations which he has been conducting in respect of PE-4. In his place, the officer mentioned in the Note will then be associated. In the meanwhile, in anticipation of the approval by DoPT, the officer may be associated with the inquiry/investigations in PE-4.

212. This disposes of the Note on Administrative Issues dated 21-9-2015 filed by CBI.

Progress Report No. 14 submitted on 17-9-2015 by CBI

213. We have gone through the progress report given by CBI, which is as follows:

213.1 Preliminary Enquiry No. 2/2012 dated 1-6-2012—This pertains to the coal block allocations between 2006 to 2009 to 168 companies for Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs) and Coal to Liquid (CTL) Projects. The enquiry has been finalised in respect of 166 of these companies. The report of the Central Vigilance Commission has also been received by CBI in respect of 166 companies. However, with regard to two companies relating to Coal to Liquid Projects, the matter is still pending and the learned counsel for CBI has stated that it will be attended to expeditiously. CBI is directed to expedite this enquiry. It is stated that 32 regular cases (RCs) have been registered as on 16-9-2015. Out of these, in respect of 8 RCs, charge-sheets have been filed and in respect of 5 RCs closure reports have been filed. With regard to the remaining 19 RCs, investigations are complete in respect of 11 of them. Execution of letters rogatory are pending in respect of 2 RCs and 6 RCs are still pending investigations. CBI should conclude these investigations at the earliest possible and in any case by 31-12-2015 taking into consideration the fact that the investigations have been going on for a considerably prolonged period of time. The result of the 11 RCs should be placed on in a sealed cover in the next progress report.

213.2 Preliminary Enquiry No. 04 dated 26-9-2012—This relates to investigations in respect of 43 coal block allocations made to private companies during 1993 to 2005. It is stated that enquiries have been completed in respect of 41 coal block allocations. Of these, 9 RCs have been filed in respect of 12 coal blocks by CBI, 7 on its own and 3 RCs in respect of 7 coal blocks have been filed by CBI on the directions of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). In respect of 2 RCs, CBI has asked CVC for further guidance. In other words, 12 RCs have actually been filed in respect of 15 coal blocks and guidance in respect of 2 RCs is pending with CVC. CBI will give us a status report with regard to the remaining coal blocks in a sealed cover in the next progress report.

213.3 Preliminary Enquiry No. 05 dated 28-9-2012—This pertains to the coal block allocations made from 1995 to 2011. 101 coal blocks have been allocated to government companies. Out of these, 26 coal blocks have been allocated to 11 Central public sector undertakings exclusively or jointly with other Central PSUs/State PSUs/private companies. The remaining 75 coal blocks have been allocated to 30 PSUs of 19 State Governments. CBI has stated in its report that enquiry has been completed in respect of 98 coal block and the orders of the competent authority have been received in respect of 96 coal blocks. It is stated that 4 RCs have been registered in respect of 9 coal blocks (it is today stated that one more RC has been registered in respect of 6 coal blocks). In respect of the remaining 81 coal blocks, no case was made out and the matter was sent to CVC which has accepted the view of CBI and has allowed the matter to rest. However, in respect of one coal block, the report of CVC is still awaited by CBI. In respect of the remaining 3 coal blocks (101-98), enquiries are still in progress. In respect of two coal blocks in which enquiries have been completed, the final orders of the competent authority are still awaited.

214. This disposes of Progress Report No. 14. The next progress report should be filed in the first week of January, 2016, by which time, we expect CBI to conclude the investigations since a considerable time has already been taken in the investigations.

(2017) 11 SCC 775

Order dated 16-11-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IA No. 36 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012 with Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

IA No. 13 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

215. It appears that the matter was listed on 30-10-2015 before a Bench of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr Justice Amitava Roy. The matter was then adjourned WP (C) No. 463 of 2012 to 6-11-2015, but could not be listed on that day since the Bench was not available. The Registry may now list the matter before a Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on Friday, 20-11-2015. Thereafter, list the matter on 30-11-2015 at 2.00 p.m before this Court.

IA No. 36 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

216. This application will be taken up on 30-11-2015 at 2.00 p.m by this Court.

Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2015 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

217. The learned counsel for the Union of India says that she would like to file a rejoinder-affidavit. List the matter on 14-12-2015 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 776(1)

Order dated 20-11-2015

(Before H.L Dattu, C.J and Shiva Kirti Singh and Amitava Roy, JJ.)

IA No. 13 of 2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

218. The Registry is directed to send back the sealed covers to the Bench dealing with the matter forthwith. The contentions of Mr Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel and Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel are kept open to be argued before that Bench.

(2017) 11 SCC 776(2)

Order dated 27-11-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012

219. Note on Administrative Issue dated 23-11-2015. Through the Administrative Note, CBI has requested for relieving Shri Ajeet Singh, Inspector, CBI, EO-I from his duties as an investigating officer since he has been selected for United Nations Peace Keeping Mission in South Sudan.

220. It is stated that the enquiries/investigations in all the cases handled by him are complete and it has been assessed that relieving him would in no manner adversely affect the ongoing investigations in coal block cases and handling of the cases pertaining to coal block. It is also stated that there is no need to replace the officer in the investigating team by CBI as the work can be managed by the existing investigating team.

221. In view of the above, we permit CBI to relieve Mr Ajeet Singh, Inspector, CBI, EO-I from the investigations into the allocation of coal blocks. This disposes of the Note on Administrative Issue.

(2017) 11 SCC 777

Order dated 7-12-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 13 and 36 in Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

IA No. 13 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

222. On 14-5-2015, we had passed an order in Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 332 that it was completely inappropriate for Mr Ranjit Sinha to have met the accused persons in the coal block allocation cases without the investigating officer being present or the investigating team being present. Under these circumstances, it was felt necessary to look into the question whether any one or more such meetings of Mr Sinha without the investigating officer have had any impact on the investigations and subsequent charge-sheets or closure reports filed by CBI.

223. Thereafter, we had requested Mr M.L Sharma, former Special Director, CBI to head the Committee and to have access to the original visitor register maintained at the residence of Mr Ranjit Sinha along with connected documents. This was through our order dated 30-9-2015. It was also brought to our notice that the register was kept in a sealed cover in view of the order passed in Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2015) 17 SCC 249, (2015) 17 SCC 282 on 8-9-2014. Since that order was passed by a different Bench, we had felt it appropriate to refer the matter to the Bench concerned for appropriate directions whether the sealed original visitor register and documents can be handed over to Mr M.L Sharma. The Bench concerned did not pass any order on that, but subsequently on 20-11-2015 the matter was sent back to this Bench.

224. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the documents kept in a sealed cover in terms of the order dated 8-9-2014 in Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2015) 17 SCC 249, (2015) 17 SCC 282 be handed over to Mr M.L Sharma, the Head of the Committee appointed by us for perusal and for submitting the report in terms of our earlier orders. The documents will be shared by Mr Sharma only with his team and will be treated as confidential and will not be made available to anybody else.

225. We had requested Mr Sharma to give us a report within eight to twelve weeks of passing of our order dated 7-9-2015 (at para 178, herein). Since substantial time has elapsed since the order was passed by us, we extend the time for submitting the report by a period of eight to twelve weeks from the date on which the documents are received by Mr Sharma. List the application when the report is received from Mr Sharma, which we expect will be given in a sealed cover.

IA No. 36 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

226. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant(s). As and when a specific request is made by Mr Sharma to this Court, that will be dealt with on its own merit by this Court. No further orders are required to be passed in this application, which is accordingly disposed of.

WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

227. With regard to the status report and other sealed documents, the Registry did not circulate the sealed covers. Under the circumstances, list the matter on 14-12-2015 at 2.00 p.m The Registry should ensure that whenever the matter is placed before the Court, all relevant documents are also circulated.

(2017) 11 SCC 778

Order dated 14-12-2015

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

Note on Administrative Issues dated 14-12-2015

228. We have considered the Note on Administrative Issues dated 14-12-2015.

229. Considering the fact that the officer concerned has been shortlisted for a prestigious course with the National Defence College, we permit him to be substituted by another officer who is empanelled as the Inspector General of Police in the Government of India. We have considered the curriculum vitae of the said officer, who is in CBI.

230. Considering the circumstances, we allow the request made in the Note on Administrative Issues which is disposed of accordingly. However, we must place on record our unhappiness at the prolonged delays in the investigations and we expect CBI to conclude the investigations at the earliest without seeking further extensions or transfer of officials.

8th Status Report filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 17-9-2015

231. We have perused the 8th Status Report filed by the Directorate of Enforcement. This is for the period from 4-7-2015 to 11-9-2015. It is stated in the Report that the investigations are being carried out with respect to issues arising under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 in respect of 43 companies. This is with reference to 45 regular cases (RCs) filed by CBI.

232. It is further stated that three provisional attachment orders (PAOs) have been issued. In respect of one of them, PAO is with respect to an amount of Rs 186.11 crores and it is stated that the complaint will be filed shortly. With regard to the second, it is stated that PAO is to the extent of Rs 24.50 crores and the complaint will be filed shortly. With respect to the third, PAO is to the extent of Rs 2.12 crores, but no information has been given whether the complaint is going to be filed shortly or, what is the stage at which the matter is pending. It is further stated that the issuance of one PAO is in the final stage.

233. For the present, we are not commenting on the progress made by the Directorate of Enforcement, but would prefer to wait for the 9th Status Report. The 9th Status Report be filed by the Directorate of Enforcement as on 31-12-2015 by 5-1-2016. List the matter on 11-1-2016 at 2.00 p.m CBI should also file the progress report as on 31-12-2015 on or before 5-1-2016 which will also be taken up on 11-1-2016 at 2.00 p.m

Observations of CVC dated 27-7-2015/28-7-2015 and 3-9-2015

234. In response to the question that we had posed to the learned Attorney General on the reports given by CVC on 27-7-2015/28-7-2015 and 3-9-2015, a communication dated 16-10-2015 from CVC has been handed over to us in Court today. The communication is taken on record and will be kept along with the aforementioned reports. These reports will be taken up on 11-1-2016 at 2.00 p.m

IA No. 13 in WP (C) No. 463 of 2012

Report No. 1 dated 10-11-2015 from the Enquiry Committee

235. We have received a report dated 10-11-2015 from the Enquiry Committee constituted vide order dated 14-9-2015. We have perused the report which is preliminary in nature. In the preliminary report, it has been stated that the Committee has started functioning with effect from 15-9-2015.

236. In our opinion, for the present, it would be appropriate if some remuneration is made to the members and staff of the Enquiry Committee in the following manner, that is to say, that they will be entitled to the last pay drawn plus 10% minus the pension that they are entitled to. The Union of India will make over the remuneration with effect from 15-9-2015 on a monthly basis and the arrears be made over in the first week of January, 2016.

237. The office report dated 11-9-2015 indicates that the sealed cover containing two registers has been handed over to the Enquiry Committee on 9-12-2015.

(2017) 11 SCC 779

Order dated 6-4-2016

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012

IA No. 13

238. We have perused the letter dated 3-3-2016 sent by Mr M.L Sharma, Head of the Enquiry Committee constituted by this Court by the order dated 14-9-2015.

239. As mentioned in the letter, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if the two officers mentioned therein i.e Shri Bhupinder Kumar and Shri M.C Joshi be given the same remuneration as has been given to Shri Vijay Kumar and Shri P.C Sharma with effect from 15-9-2015 i.e the date of commencement of the enquiry. The Department of Personnel and Training may issue an appropriate letter in this regard at the earliest and arrears be paid accordingly.

240. We have received a copy of the report of the Committee constituted in compliance with the order dated 14-9-2015. A copy of the report has been handed over to the learned Attorney General in Court. We request the learned Attorney General to assist us as to the further course of action. List the matter on 4-5-2016 at 2.00 p.m

IA No. 37

241. Application is dismissed. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach the High Court for further orders. We make it clear that this Court has not constituted any Special Investigating Team to look into any allegations against Mr Ranjit Sinha, former Director of CBI in respect of extraction of money from several persons.

Crl. MP No. … of 2016 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 (for direction in terms of the order dated 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703 for issuance of LR)

242. A prayer made in this Crl. MP is for appropriate orders permitting CBI to forward a proposal mentioned in the application for issuance of letters rogatory as per the prescribed procedure to the Ministry of Home Affairs for getting requisite compliance.

243. Application is allowed. No further orders are required to be passed.

Crl. MP No. … of 2016 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 (for direction in terms of the order dated 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703 for appointment of a Forensic Auditor)

244. In this Crl. MP, CBI has requested for permission to appoint a Forensic Auditor for investigations as a part of the team.

245. We permit CBI to approach the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for appointment of a Forensic Auditor and we request the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to nominate an appropriate officer/agency within two weeks from being approached by CBI. Application stands disposed of.

Note on Administrative Issues dated 6-4-2016

246. This Note has been filed by CBI bringing to the notice of this Court that the period of deputation of Shri Agni Deo Prasad, Dy. Superintendent of Police is due to expire on 23-5-2016. It is stated in the Note that he was entrusted with some cases pertaining to PE-5/2012 pertaining to allocation of coal block to the Central and State PSUs. The enquiry of the said PE with which the officer was concerned has since been completed and as on date there is no matter pertaining to coal scam cases that is pending with him.

247. We have been informed by Mr Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI that closure reports have been filed in those cases with which the officer was involved and the closure reports have been accepted by CVC. As such, the services of the officer are no longer required and since his period of deputation is coming to an end, he may be allowed to be repatriated to his parent department.

248. It is further stated that in the event some information is required, there is another officer with CBI, who is aware of the cases dealt with by this particular officer and that his services may be taken, if necessary.

249. In view of the above, Note on Administrative Issues is disposed of. The officer concerned i.e Shri Agni Deo Prasad may be repatriated to his parent department after the period of his deputation is over. The report filed by the Enforcement Directorate as well as by CBI will also be taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing i.e 4-5-2016.

(2017) 11 SCC 781

Order dated 4-5-2016

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 463 of 2012 with Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 2 of 2015, 1-4 and 7 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012, SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 9620-21, 9740 of 2015 and Crl. MP No. 18909 of 2015

Application for directions dated 4-5-2016

250. We have heard Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CBI and Mr R.S Cheema, Special Public Prosecutor.

251. The prayer made in the application for directions is allowed. The Special Court may retain original documents and forward copies of all such documents to the appellate court. However, we make it clear that if the appellate court requires, it may call for the original documents. Application for direction is disposed of.

252. Mr Amarendra Sharan has handed over a Note on Administrative Issues filed on 4-5-2016 and a bird's-eye view of investigation (from 1-1-2016 to 30-4-2016) filed by the Directorate of Enforcement and Progress Report No. 16 filed by CBI on 4-5-2016.

253. List the writ petition along with the aforesaid reports and earlier sealed reports filed in this matter on 11-5-2016 at 2.00 p.m

Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 2 of 2015, 1-4 and 7 of 2016 in WP (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012 and SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 9620-21, 9740 of 2015 and Crl. MP No. 18909 of 2015

254. List these matters on 13-7-2016 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 782

Order dated 12-7-2016

(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Dr A.K Sikri, JJ.)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012

IA No. 13

255. We have heard the submissions of the learned Attorney General and other learned counsel including Mr Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel on the issue of further steps to be taken on the report given by the Committee headed by Mr M.L Sharma, former Special Director, CBI. Orders reserved.

Note on Administrative Issue dated 4-5-2016

256. We have gone through the Administrative Note given by CBI dated 4-5-2016. It is clarified that contrary to what is stated in Para 3 of the Note, the reports that have been submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission have not been approved by this Court, but have only been accepted for being taken on record and nothing more. As far as the prayer made by CBI is concerned, the Director, CBI will take a decision on case-by-case basis whether any particular file is to be disclosed to the Internal Vigilance of CBI on the complaint relating to the conduct of any specific officer. This disposes of the Administrative Note.

Observations of CVC dated 27-7-2015

257. We have gone through the observations of the Central Vigilance Commission in the Note dated 27-7-2015. The reports of CBI and CVC indicate that the enquiry into the missing files does not indicate any criminality. Accordingly, CVC is of the view that the matter may be allowed to rest. However, certain observations have been made with regard to corrective action that is required to be taken for making systemic improvements in the file record management in the Ministry of Coal. The suggestions that have been made both by CBI and CVC in this regard should be communicated expeditiously to the Ministry of Coal for better and proper management of files. List for compliance on 2-8-2016 at 2.00 p.m

Observations of CVC dated 3-9-2015

258. We have gone through the observations of the Vigilance Commissioners in the Central Vigilance Commission in the Note dated 3-9-2015. The observations made are taken on record. We may note that the Vigilance Commissioners have accepted the unanimous recommendation of CBI that the subject-matter of the observations may be allowed to rest. However, as regards the self-contained note, the Vigilance Commissioners are of the view that CBI may proceed as recommended. Accordingly, CBI is directed to proceed in accordance with the self-contained note which may be sent to the Ministry of Coal and the Government of West Bengal. List for compliance on 2-8-2016 at 2.00 p.m

Observations of CVC dated 28-1-2016

259. We have gone through the observations of the Central Vigilance Commission in the Note dated 28-1-2016 relating to acceptance of the unanimous view of CBI to close the cases pertaining to three coal blocks. The view of CVC is taken on record. However, it has been noted that there have been irregularities in execution of the contract pertaining to Arunachal Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation. These irregularities should be communicated to the State Government concerned. List for compliance on 2-8-2016 at 2.00 p.m

Observations of CVC dated 23-2-2016

260. We have gone through the observations of CVC in the Note dated 23-2-2016. There seems to be a difference of opinion with regard to further steps to be taken in respect of the case that was considered by CVC. CVC is of the opinion that the matter should be left for decision by this Court. We are not inclined to take a decision in the matter, but would request Mr R.S Cheema, Special Public Prosecutor to look into the matter and advise us accordingly. The necessary papers may be handed over to Mr Cheema by CBI or CVC as the case may be. Mr Cheema will give his views within six weeks. This Note of CVC be listed on 7-9-2016 at 2.00 p.m

Observations of CVC dated 2-3-2016

261. We have gone through the observations of CVC in the Note dated 2-3-2016. CVC has endorsed the view of CBI that there is no irregularity in the allocation of the coal blocks which is the subject-matter of the Note. However, a self-contained note should be sent by CBI to the Government of Pondicherry bringing out the irregularities noticed in the agreement entered by Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. with M/s J.R PowerGen, as noted by CVC. List for compliance on 2-8-2016 at 2.00 p.m

Observations of CVC dated 7-4-2016

262. We have gone through the observations of CVC in the Note dated 7-4-2016. CVC has accepted the view of CBI that in the coal to liquid projects, no irregularity has been found. Accordingly, the observations of CVC are taken on record. No further orders are required to be passed on this Note. For considering 9th Status/Progress Report and bird's-eye view of investigation filed by the Directorate of Enforcement and Progress Reports 15 and 16 filed by CBI, list the matter on 2-8-2016 at 2.00 p.m

(2017) 11 SCC 783

Order dated 11-1-2017

(Before Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 3 and 4 of 2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 505 of 2015

263. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, as to Interlocutory Applications Nos. 3 and 4 of 2017 filed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2015.

264. The writ petition has been filed by the Common Cause (A Registered Society) and others for issuance of appropriate writ for setting aside the appointment made by the Union of India, of Respondent 2 Mr K.V Chaudhary as Central Vigilance Commissioner and Mr T.M Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner on various grounds as enumerated in the petition, pointing out that these persons are not of impeccable integrity.

265. In IA No. 3 of 2016 it is averred that, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “CBI”) conducted raid on the premises of Aditya Birla Group industries in four cities on 15-10-2013, followed by another raid by the Income Tax Department on the very next day. The raid by CBI reportedly led to recovery of incriminating documents and unaccounted cash amounting to Rs 25 crores. It is submitted that CBI transferred the incriminating documents to the Income Tax Department. The laptop of Mr Shubhendu Amitabh, Group Executive President was seized during the raid. An email dated 16-11-2012 containing a cryptic entry was also recovered from the said laptop referring to political functionaries. When Mr Amitabh was questioned about the transactions, he stated that “these were purely personal notes. Not meant for SMS or email transmission. And the first note is only to note for my knowledge and consumption — a business development at Gujarat Alkali Chemicals” it does not relate to any political functionary. During investigation, top officials of the Birla Group admitted that large amounts of cash were routed by the Group through Hawala. The Income Tax Department prepared a detailed appraisal report on the Hawala transactions. Some extracts of the report dated 27-2-2014 have been filed as Annexure A-5. A direction has already been issued by this Court to CBI on 12-10-2015 to enquire into these, even though they might be unrelated to the Coal Block Allocation cases. CBI has not taken any concrete action. CBI is trying to protect the influential personalities named in the documents seized and is shielding powerful corporate entities. It has been alleged that Respondent 2 has also tried to shield the offenders.

266. With respect to Sahara Group, it is averred that the Income Tax Department raided Sahara India Group offices in Delhi and Noida on 22-11-2014. During the raid, incriminating documents and cash amounting to Rs 135 crores had been seized. Certain documents have been filed in the form of printouts of the excel sheet showing cash receipt of over Rs 115 crores and cash outflow of over Rs 113 crores during a short period of 10 months. The random log suggests that cash was transferred to several important public figures. Copies of the random pages have been filed as Annexure A-8. The pages, Annexures A-9 and A-10 have been filed which contain the proposal regarding the actual payments which were made to large number of top political leaders of the country.

267. It is also averred that certain complaints to CBI, CBDT, CVC, SIT, Enforcement Directorate and Settlement Commissioner have been made but without avail. In spite of that, the Income Tax Settlement Commission gave immunity to the Sahara Group of Companies vide its order dated 11-11-2016 which has been filed along with IA No. 4.

268. IA No. 4 has been filed by the petitioner pursuant to the direction given by this Court to substantiate the documents filed along with IA No. 3. IA No. 4 contains more or less the same facts. Details have been given as to Birla Group that cash of Rs 25 crores was not accounted for in the regular books of accounts of Aditya Birla Group or another company and it is also stated that Mr Anand Saxena told the Income Tax Department that he was responsible for handling the cash transactions and he had received cash from Mr Jaluram in the range of Rs 50,00,000 (Rupees fifty lakhs only). Mr Jaluram is the Angadia, courier of local Hawala operators. However, it was stated that he was not aware about the payment made to anyone and he could not say to whom the unaccounted money had been paid. Emails dated 2-1-2013, 7-4-2013 and 3-5-2013 have been placed on record.

269. It is further submitted that during the search operation, it was revealed that the proposed payment of Rs 7.5 crores had been made during the period 9-1-2012 and 2-2-2012 with respect to “Project-J — Environment & Forest”, and that 13 projects of the Aditya Birla Group of Companies had been sanctioned by the Ministry of Environment and Forest between 8-11-2011 and 17-6-2013. The document — Annexure D is stated to be related to Coal Block of Birla Group of Companies by the Coal Ministry during the aforesaid period. Email dated 13-5-2013, relating to MoEF has also been placed on record.

270. It is averred that evidence of certain highly incriminating money transactions was also found in the laptop of Mr Shubhendu Amitabh. An email dated 16-11-2012 containing a cryptic entry, has been recovered which in fact does not relate to Gujarat Alkali Chemicals but to a political functionary and that this fact ought to have been ascertained.

271. It is further averred in the application that documents of Sahara also make out a case of cognizable offence and the role played by Respondent 2 should be enquired into. The explanation given to the Income Tax Department on behalf of the Sahara Group by Mr Sachin Pawar, that exercise was done to implicate Mr Dogra and to get him punished from the management is unworthy of credence, as was suggested by the Department. However, the stand of Department has been ignored and the Settlement Commission accepted the case set up by the assessee and absolved Sahara from criminal and civil liability on different grounds, even after receiving a letter from the counsel of Common Cause that he was going to file an application before this Court in the instant matter.

272. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It was submitted by Shri Shanti Bhushan and Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that it is a fit case for constitution of the SIT for directing investigation into the incriminating material seized in the raids conducted on the Birla and Sahara Group of Companies in question.

273. It was submitted that though at this stage, it cannot be said conclusively that payments have been made, however, a prima facie case has been made out to direct investigation on the basis of the materials recovered in the raids in question. It has been argued that the order passed by the Settlement Commission cannot be said to be in accordance with law and is self-contradictory and has been passed in haste. The finding recorded therein cannot be relied upon and it is the bounden duty of this Court to direct investigation as one whosoever high is not above law and this Court being the constitutional court and the highest court of the country should direct investigation into the material collected in the raids of two business groups. The investigation by Special Investigating Team should not be only ordered, but it should be monitored by this Court.

274. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that in CBI v. V.C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, this Court has laid down the law as to admissibility of material involved therein after the investigation was over and is of no applicability in this case, at this stage. The allegations which are reflected by the materials collected indicates commission of cognizable offence. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P (2014) 2 SCC 1, he urged that it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct investigation and falsity or correctness of the documents has to be seen in the course of the investigation.

275. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India and Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General have submitted that the material in question with respect to Sahara Group on the basis of which investigation is sought for, have been found by the Settlement Commission, in proceedings under Section 245-D of the Income Tax Act, to be doubtful. The documents which have been filed by the Birla as well as Sahara Group are not in the form of account books maintained in regular course of business. They are random sheets and loose papers and their correctness and authenticity, even for the purpose of income mentioned therein have been found to be unreliable having no evidentiary value, by the authorities concerned of income tax. The documents of Birla Group are also the same. They are not in the form of regular books of account and are random and stray materials and thus the case of Birla Group also stands on the same footing.

276. Placing implicit reliance on the decision of this Court in CBI v. V.C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, it was submitted that it is open to any unscrupulous person to make any entry any time against anybody's name unilaterally on any sheet of paper or computer excel sheet. There being no further corroborative material with respect to the payment, no case is made out so as to direct an investigation, and that too against large number of persons named in the documents. Such entries have been held to be prima facie not even admissible in V.C Shukla case (1998) 3 SCC 410. He urged that in case investigation is ordered on the basis of such documents, it would be very dangerous and no constitutional functionary/officer can function independently, as per the constitutional imperatives. No case is made out on the basis of material which is not cognizable in law, to direct investigation.

277. Before dilating upon the issue canvassed in the application we make it clear that we have not examined the main writ petitions vis-à-vis challenge to the appointments of Respondents 2 and 3. We are examining only the merit of IA No. 3 supported by IA No. 4, as to whether a case is made out on the basis of materials which are placed on record, to constitute SIT and direct investigation against the various functionaries/officers which are projected in Annexures A-8, A-9 and A-10 and other entries on loose sheets and further monitor the same.

278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C Shukla case (1998) 3 SCC 410 has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed but same is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case also. This Court has considered the entries in Jain Hawala diaries, notebooks and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form of “books of accounts” and has held that such entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that only where the entries are made in the books of accounts regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible.

279. It has further been laid down in V.C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 as to the value of entries in the books of account, that such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. It has been held that even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability.

280. This Court has further laid down in V.C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that meaning of account book would be spiral notebook/pad but not loose sheets. The following extract being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:(, 17, 18 & 20)

“14. In setting aside the order of the trial court, the High Court accepted the contention of the respondents that the documents were not admissible in evidence under Section 34 with the following words:

‘70. … an account presupposes the existence of two persons such as a seller and a purchaser, creditor and debtor. Admittedly, the alleged diaries in the present case are not records of the entries arising out of a contract. They do not contain the debits and credits. They can at the most be described as a memorandum kept by a person for his own benefit which will enable him to look into the same whenever the need arises to do so for his future purposes. Admittedly the said diaries were not being maintained on day-to-day basis in the course of business. There is no mention of the dates on which the alleged payments were made. In fact the entries therein are on monthly basis. Even the names of the persons whom the alleged payments were made do not find a mention in full. They have been shown in abbreviated form. Only certain “letters” have been written against their names which are within the knowledge of only the scribe of the said diaries as to what they stand for and whom they refer to.’

***

17. From a plain reading of the section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above section it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second part speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with which we are concerned, fulfil the requirements of the above section so as to be admissible in evidence and if this question is answered in the affirmative then only its probative value need be assessed.

18. “Book” ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as “book” for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the word “book” appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram v. Dayaram 1911 SCC OnLine MP 1, AIR 1914 Nag 44 a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed: (SCC OnLine MP para 4)

‘4. … In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to be movable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a book. … I think the term “book” in Section 34 aforesaid may properly be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. It is easier however to say what is not a book for the purposes of Section 34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets of paper, in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of Section 34.’

We must observe that the aforesaid approach is in accord with good reasoning and we are in full agreement with it. Applying the above tests it must be held that the two spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are “books” within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MRs 72/91 and 73/91).

***

20. Mr Sibal, the learned counsel for the Jains, did not dispute that the spiral notebooks and the small pads are “books” within the meaning of Section 34. He, however, strongly disputed the admissibility of those books in evidence under the aforesaid section on the ground that they were neither books of account nor were they regularly kept in the course of business. He submitted that at best it could be said that those books were memoranda kept by a person for his own benefit. According to Mr Sibal, in business parlance “account” means a formal statement of money transactions between parties arising out of contractual or fiduciary relationship. Since the books in question did not reflect any such relationship and, on the contrary, only contained entries of monies received from one set of persons and payment thereof to another set of persons it could not be said, by any stretch of imagination that they were books of account, argued Mr Sibal. He next contended that even if it was assumed for argument's sake that the above books were books of account relating to a business still they would not be admissible under Section 34 as they were not regularly kept. It was urged by him that the words “regularly kept” mean that the entries in the books were contemporaneously made at the time the transactions took place but a cursory glance of the books would show that the entries were made therein long after the purported transactions took place. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the dictionary meanings of the words “account” and “regularly kept”.”

(emphasis supplied)

281. With respect to evidentiary value of regular account book, this Court has laid down in V.C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, thus:

“37. In Beni v. Bisan Dayal 1925 SCC OnLine MP 37, AIR 1925 Nag 445 it was observed that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal v. Ram Rakha AIR 1953 Pepsu 113 the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be relevant and to have been proved, said that the rule as laid down in Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is not, therefore, enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts.”

282. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under Section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. The entire prosecution based upon such entries which led to the investigation was quashed by this Court.

283. We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering investigation against any important constitutional functionary, officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to constitute evidence and not admissible in evidence, we have apprehension whether it would be safe to even initiate investigation. In case we do so, the investigation can be ordered as against any person whosoever high in integrity on the basis of irrelevant or inadmissible entry falsely made, by any unscrupulous person or business house that too not kept in regular books of accounts but on random papers at any given point of time. There has to be some relevant and admissible evidence and some cogent reason, which is prima facie reliable and that too, supported by some other circumstances pointing out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries. In case we do not insist for all these, the process of law can be abused against all and sundry very easily to achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in case investigations are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries on the basis of fictitious entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on record, lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily. We find the materials which have been placed on record either in the case of Birla Group or in the case of Sahara Group are not maintained in regular course of business and thus lack in required reliability to be made the foundation of a police investigation.

284. In case of Sahara Group, in addition we have the adjudication by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The order has been placed on record along with IA No. 4. The Settlement Commission has observed that the scrutiny of entries on loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives, etc. have revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer printouts, hard disk and pen drive, etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Evidence Act and are not admissible evidence. It further observed that the Department has no evidence to prove that entries in these loose papers and electronic data were kept regularly during the course of business of the business house concerned and the fact that these entries were fabricated, non-genuine was proved. It held as well that the PCIT/DR have not been able to show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary value of loose papers and electronic documents within the legal parameters. The Commission has also observed that the Department has not been able to make out a clear case of taxing such income in the hands of the applicant firm on the basis of these documents.

285. It is apparent that the Commission has recorded a finding that transactions noted in the documents were not genuine and thus has not attached any evidentiary value to the pen drive, hard disk, computer loose papers, computer printouts.

286. Since it is not disputed that for entries relied on in these loose papers and electronic data were not regularly kept during course of business, such entries were discussed in the order dated 11-11-2016 passed in Sahara's case by the Settlement Commission and the documents have not been relied upon by the Commission against the assessee, and thus such documents have no evidentiary value against third parties. On the basis of the materials which have been placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A-10, etc. of Sahara Group.

287. This Court, in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P (2014) 2 SCC 1 has laid down that when there is commission of offence apparent from the complaint and a cognizable offence is made out, investigation should normally be ordered and the falsity of the allegations can be ascertained during the course of investigation. In our opinion, the decision of Lalita Kumari (2014) 2 SCC 1 is of no help to the petitioner for seeking direction for an investigation from a court on the basis of documents which are irrelevant, and per se not cognizable in law as piece of evidence and inadmissible in evidence and thus a roving inquiry cannot be ordered on such legally unsustainable material.

288. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court has laid down principles in regard to quashing the FIR. The court can quash the FIR also if situation warrant even before investigation takes place in certain circumstances. This Court has laid down thus:

“102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report of the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

(emphasis supplied)

289. Considering the aforesaid principles which have been laid down, we are of the opinion that the materials in question are not good enough to constitute offences to direct the registration of FIR and investigation therein. The materials should qualify the test as per the aforesaid decision. The complaint should not be improbable and must show sufficient ground and commission of offence on the basis of which registration of a case can be ordered. The materials in question are not only irrelevant but are also legally inadmissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, more so with respect to the third parties and considering the explanation which have been made by the Birla Group and Sahara Group, we are of the opinion that it would not be legally justified, safe, just and proper to direct investigation, keeping in view principles laid down in Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and V.C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410.

290. In view of the materials which have been placed on record and the peculiar facts and circumstances projected in the case, we find that no case is made out to direct the investigation as prayed for.

291. Thus, we find no merit in Interlocutory Application No. 3 supported by IA No. 4. The applications deserve dismissal and are hereby dismissed.