Subrata Chattoraj v. Union Of India And Others

(Before T.S. Thakur and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)

Writ Petitions (C) No. 401 of 2013 with No. 402 of 2013, TP (C) No. 445 of 2014

1. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. The counsel for the parties are free to file their respective written submissions within one week.

2. Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, shall also take instructions as to the reasons for the delay in the issue of notification under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in relation to transfer of chit fund scam cases for investigation in the State of Assam. He may file a written note on the subject within one week from today.

IA No. 5 of 2014 in WP (C) No. 401 of 2013

3. After arguing the matter at some length, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw IA No. 5 (application for intervention) reserving liberty for the applicant to seek such other redress as may be open to him in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court in accordance with law.

4. IA No. 5 is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for.

Order dated 15-9-2014

(Before T.S. Thakur and R. Banumathi, JJ.)

IA No. 9 of 2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013

5. Heard. This application simply seeks a modification of our order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768 to the extent the said order reserves liberty for the Joint Director, CBI, in charge of the States of West Bengal and Odisha to seek further directions in relation to transfer of any other case or cases that may require to be transferred for investigation to CBI for a full and effective investigation into the Scam.

6. Mr Tushar Mehta, learned ASG submits that instead of the Joint Director, CBI, in charge of the States of West Bengal and Odisha, liberty could be reserved in favour of the Joint Director concerned of CBI/SIT for the reasons set out by him in the application. We see no reason to decline that prayer especially when the same is limited to a clarification to the extent that further directions, if any, can be prayed for by the officer concerned of CBI not necessarily in charge of the States of West Bengal and Odisha. We accordingly modify our order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768 to the extent that the Joint Director concerned of CBI/SIT may, if so advised, to seek any further directions in terms of para 35 of the order mentioned above.

7. IA is disposed of.

Order dated 5-2-2015

(Before T.S. Thakur and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 10-15 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013 with CP (C) No. 31 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 402 of 2013, CP (C) No. 32 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 402 of 2013, WP (Crl.) No. 10 of 2015

8. Heard. In IAs Nos. 10-13 filed by the General Secretary of the Trinamool Congress the applicant has sought addition as a party to these proceedings. Besides a prayer for monitoring the ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a direction restraining CBI to desist from leaking the details of investigation has also been made.

9. In IAs Nos. 14-15 for directions filed by the Government of West Bengal, the following prayers have been made:

“(a) Direct court monitoring of the investigation being conducted by CBI within the State of West Bengal;

(b) Restrain the media from regularly reporting leaks from CBI and unfounded allegations and/or information except those disclosed in the official briefings and releases by the investigating agency;

(c) Direct that there is no hindrance and/or bar in the trial courts' proceedings with the cases as mentioned in Annexure A-2 of this application and they should be disposed of expeditiously in light of directions passed by this Hon'ble Court;

(d) Direct that CBI shall henceforth conduct the trial expeditiously in the cases as mentioned in Annexure A-2 of this application;

(e) Direct that CBI shall take over immediately all cases registered in the entire State of West Bengal being both Saradha and non-Saradha cases and dispose them of expeditiously within a reasonable time-frame;

(f) Press any other order/directions as may be deemed appropriate by the Hon'ble Court.”

10. Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 31 and 32 of 2015 have on the other hand been filed by the original writ petitioners alleging that the respondents in the said petitions have committed contempt of this Court by obstructing the ongoing investigation into the cases by among other things by organising protest marches and processions.

11. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Government of West Bengal argued that although a prayer for restraining the media from publishing reports based on selective leaks from CBI and unfounded allegations and information has been made in the applications filed by the State Government, he has instruction not to press that prayer. He, however, contended that apart from 76 cases taken over by CBI, pursuant to this Court's order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768, a large number of other cases arising in relation to Saradha Group of Companies remain to be taken over for further investigation. He submitted that charge-sheets have already been filed before the jurisdictional court concerned in as many as 193 cases in which too CBI has conducted no further investigation even though it was permitted to do so by this Court. He contended that it was only after the matter was mentioned before this Court on 19-1-2015 that a letter purported to have been signed on 16-1-2015 was delivered to the Director General of Police, West Bengal, on 19-1-2015, stating that CBI does not intend to undertake any further investigation in 317 cases already filed before the competent courts, arising out of complaints filed by individual depositors alleging non-payment of the maturity value of their deposits by Saradha Group. Mr Sibal argued that by delaying its response on the subject CBI had delayed the disposal of such cases pending before the courts concerned.

12. As regards cases against other companies and entities, our attention was drawn to a letter similarly addressed to the Director General of Police, West Bengal, also dated 16-1-2015 in which CBI has inter alia stated that out of the cases registered by the State Police, 70 cases taken over by it have led to registration of 9 cases by CBI which are being investigated by it. Besides, another 65 cases covering 242 FIRs in regard to the non-Saradha Group of Companies are also under investigation. As regards the rest of the cases, CBI has expressed its inability to conduct any investigation on account of shortage of manpower, infrastructure and logistic support. Mr Sibal submitted that since all the cases registered before 9-5-2014 stand transferred for investigation to CBI, a piquant situation has arisen in which the State Police is unable to conduct any investigation because of the transfer of such cases to CBI which CBI is now refusing to take over citing manpower and infrastructure deficiencies as an excuse.

13. There is, in our opinion, merit in the submission made by Mr Sibal that CBI cannot decline to conduct investigation in cases transferred to it by order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768, so long as that order holds the field. If CBI has any difficulty in taking over the investigation in all such cases, on account of manpower or other difficulties, it could and ought to ask for a suitable modification in which event this Court may consider the prayer and pass an appropriate order. But so long as there is no such prayer, CBI's stand that it cannot investigate the cases transferred to it for any manpower or other deficiencies, is not acceptable.

14. We may in fairness to Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, mention that even he conceded that in the light of the order passed by this Court on 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768, transferring all such cases as were registered up to the date of the order of this Court to CBI, the non-availability of infrastructure or otherwise is no excuse. He, however, sought permission of this Court to make a suitable application for modification of the said direction so that investigation in cases that have already been taken over, does not suffer on account of a bulk transfer of such a large number of cases as would hamper effective investigation into the entire scam. Mr Kumar, however, made it clear that in cases where the State Police has filed charge-sheets in Saradha and non-Saradha group of cases, CBI does not propose to conduct any further investigation. That submission clears the decks for the State prosecuting agency pursuing the said matters before the courts concerned and for the courts to take up the matters for an expeditious disposal thereof.

15. That leaves us with the question, whether we need to add General Secretary of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) as a party respondent to these proceedings and to consider the prayer for monitoring of the ongoing investigation. We may at the outset point out that WPs (C) Nos. 401 and 402 of 2013 stand finally disposed of in terms of our order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768. There is, therefore, nothing pending before us in which the applicant may seek addition as a party. So also we see no reason to monitor the day-to-day progress in the investigation being conducted by CBI which is one of the prayers made by the State Government also.

16. The submission made by M/s Sibal and Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants, that the ongoing investigation ought to be monitored to ensure that the selective leaks which CBI is giving to the media, do not deflect the ongoing investigation, has no real factual basis. That the media is being given any information, selective or otherwise, is unsupported by any material on record. Not only that the Solicitor General has, on the instructions of DIG, CBI, emphatically repudiated the accusation that the investigating agency is leaking out any information to the media, it was submitted that CBI at the State level does not address any press conference or have any interaction with the media. That part is handled by the headquarters of CBI at Delhi. Allegations of selective or other leak by CBI are based on the perception of the applicants only. That being so, we see no reason to monitor the investigation at this stage. Needless to say that anyone aggrieved of any action taken by CBI is free to seek appropriate redress in accordance with law before the appropriate court in appropriate proceedings.

17. That leaves us with the two contempt petitions filed by the original writ petitioners accusing the respondents therein of committing contempt inasmuch as they are alleged to have prevented CBI from conducting the investigation transferred to it. We see no reason to entertain any petition especially when the alleged obstruction is a matter that would give to CBI the cause of action to make a grievance which it is free to make if the need so arises.

18. In the result, we dismiss these applications and contempt petitions reserving liberty for CBI to seek modification of our order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768, if so advised.

WP (Crl.) No. 10 of 2015

19. In view of what we have said above, we do not consider the present to be a fit case for issuing any further directions in exercise of our power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

20. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order dated 27-7-2015

(Before T.S. Thakur and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)

IAs Nos. 16-18 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013 [Item No. 301] with IAs Nos. 6, 8-10, 12-14, IA No. 15 in IA No. 12, IA No. 16 in IA No. 14 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013 [Item No. 302], WP (C) No. 244 of 2015 [Item No. 303] and SLP (C) No. … (CC No. 13513 of 2015) [Item No. 304]

IA No. 16 in WP (C) No. 401 of 2013

21. Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that there is a severe manpower deficit in CBI which is hampering the functioning and investigation of the cases entrusted to it. He has placed on record a statement indicating the requirement of additional manpower for registration of 265 non-Saradha cases pertaining to the State of West Bengal. The statement shows the requirement of 10 Superintendents of Police, 15 investigating officers of the rank of Additional SPs, 30 investigating officers of the rank of Dy. SPs and 85 investigating officers of the rank of Inspectors. In addition, the requirement of 40 Sub-Inspectors, 20 Asstt. Sub-Inspectors and 30 Head Constables has also been indicated. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that all the IPS officers holding the rank of Superintendent of Police and all other officers/executive staff which the State of West Bengal may agree to depute must additionally satisfy CBI deputation criteria.

22. The State of West Bengal has responded to the projected manpower requirement by filing an additional affidavit in which the State has pointed out the overall vacancy position in the West Bengal Police Department. A perusal of Annexure R-1 to the additional affidavit goes to show that as many as 26,213 vacancies in different cadres including that of Superintendents of Police, Additional Superintendents of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police, etc. exist as on date. Mr L. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal argued that although there are constraints in sparing officers for CBI, the State Government is not averse to sparing a reasonable number of such officers as are required by CBI keeping in view the fact that the scam cases which CBI is investigating relate to the State of West Bengal. It is urged that the Director General of Police could be asked to discuss the matter with the Director/Joint Director of CBI, in charge of cases in question to work out some acceptable solution in the given situation. We see no reason to decline such a prayer. The solution, in our opinion, lies in working out an arrangement which will serve the needs of CBI without adversely or prejudicially affecting the requirements of the West Bengal Government. We would, therefore, direct the Director, CBI to take up the matter with the DGP, State of West Bengal and evolve an acceptable arrangement in terms of number of officers to be deputed to CBI as also the cadres from which they are to be drawn. The needful in this regard is to be done within four weeks from today.

23. List this application again on 17-8-2015.

24. The parties shall be at liberty to mention the matter in case there is any urgency.

IAs Nos. 17-18 in WP (C) No. 401 of 2013

25. Heard. We see no merit in these applications which are accordingly dismissed. Liberty is, however, given to the applicants to seek such redress as may be permissible under the law before the appropriate forum.

IA No. 6 of 2014 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

26. IA No. 6 of 2014 is allowed.

IA No. 8 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

27. Since IA No. 7 of 2014 has already been dismissed, this IA shall also stand dismissed.

IA No. 9 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

28. We do not see any merit in IA No. 9 of 2015 which is accordingly dismissed.

IA No. 10 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

29. Heard.

30. We do not find any reason to direct filing of status/progress report especially when CBI is diligently conducting the ongoing investigation. The applicant is free to assist CBI for an early and effective completion of the investigation. IA No. 10 of 2015 is accordingly dismissed.

IA No. 12 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

31. We do not see any merit in this application for intervention. IA No. 12 of 2015 is accordingly dismissed.

IA No. 13 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

32. Since IA No. 7 of 2014 has already been dismissed, this IA has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

IA No. 14 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

33. Heard. We do not see any reason to entertain this application for intervention at this stage especially when the main writ petition has already been disposed of. IA No. 14 of 2015 is accordingly dismissed.

34. However, the applicant is at liberty to seek such redress as may be open to him in such proceedings as may be permissible under law.

IA No. 15 of 2015 in IA No. 12 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

35. We see no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. The applicant shall be free to seek such redress before the appropriate court as may be permissible in accordance with law.

IA No. 16 of 2015 in IA No. 14 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 413 of 2013

36. Heard. We see no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.

WP (C) No. 244 of 2015

37. List on 17-8-2015.

SLP (C) … CC No. 13513 of 2015

38. Permission to file SLP is granted. Delay condoned.

39. Issue notice to the State of Assam and the Director General of Police, Assam in the first instance.

40. There shall be stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 8-1-2015 passed by the High Court. Status reports may, however, be filed by CBI before the High Court regarding 15 cases that were transferred to it by the Assam Government for investigation.

Order dated 24-8-2015

(Before T.S. Thakur and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)

IA No. 16 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013 with SLP (C) No. 21834 of 2015 and WP (C) No. 244 of 2015

41. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) submits that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 27-7-2015, the Director General of Police, Government of West Bengal and the Director/Joint Director of CBI, in charge of West Bengal, Sharda Scam cases, held a meeting in which the issue regarding deputation of police officers from the State of West Bengal to CBI was discussed at some length. He further submits that, according to the information available with him, the Director General of Police, West Bengal was not prepared to spare more than three Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs), two Inspectors, five Sub-Inspectors and ten Constables to ease the manpower crunch faced by CBI. He urged that the number of officers offered by the State Government was wholly insufficient for CBI to deal with the large number of cases that stand transferred to it for investigation.

42. Mr Kumar also placed on record the vacancy position of the executive officers in CBI and urged that as against the total cadre strength of 4544 officers of different ranks ranging from Constables to the Director, CBI, CBI is at present functioning only with a strength of 3790 officers leaving a deficit of 754 officers in different cadres. He is, however, unable to state as to the number of vacancies which CBI is entitled to fill up substantively as part of CBI's own cadre strength and those that have to be filled up by taking officers from other cadres on deputation. He sought some time to furnish the requisite information. He also sought time to place on record the relevant recruitment rules.

43. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal submitted that the number of officers required by CBI to effectively take up the investigation, is indeed, large but the State has its own problems which cannot be ignored. He submitted that whatever number of officers the Court may direct the Government to spare will be spared but the State's own compulsion may also be kept in view while issuing any such direction.

44. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, we are of the view that the number of officers offered by the State Government, ought to be doubled so that CBI gets a reasonable number of officers to take up investigation in the pending matters. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, however, argued that the State is offering to spare officers by “attachment” which means that the officers so provided will not remain under the disciplinary and administrative control of CBI. This, according to Mr Kumar, is likely to affect the efficacy of these officers and their independence in working and will not serve the purpose for which they are being taken into CBI. That apart, the officers who are sent to CBI must additionally satisfy the deputation criteria of CBI. It was urged that the officers nominated by the State Government may or may not be found to be satisfying the deputation criteria of CBI. Taking that aspect into consideration, we are of the view that the proper course would be to direct the State Government to prepare a panel of officers four times the number of officers offered by it to CBI for deputation. This would mean that the State Government shall submit to CBI a list of twelve Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs), eight Inspectors, twenty Sub-Inspectors and forty Constables. CBI would then examine the suitability of the officers so empanelled for being taken on deputation according to the criterion, if any, prevalent for that purpose. Once CBI completes that process, the officers so identified/selected shall be deputed by the State Government to CBI subject to the pay protection of such officers while on deputation and grant of all such service benefits as are otherwise admissible to those serving in CBI on deputation. Needless to say that CBI shall restrict its requirement to twice to the number of officers offered by the State meaning thereby that out of the twelve Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSP), eight Inspectors, twenty Sub-Inspectors and forty Constables enlisted by the State of West Bengal, not more than six Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSP), four Inspectors, ten Sub-Inspectors and twenty Constables shall be taken by CBI on deputation. We only hope that officers deputed by the State Government, even without their consent, will not approach us for cancellation of their deputation orders for investigation into cases transferred to CBI, which is in the public interest and those selected for serving CBI will be responding to a call of duty to the nation which they are expected to willingly perform. Having said that, we make it very clear that no court shall entertain any petition on behalf of any of the officers sent by the State of West Bengal on deputation to CBI. Those against the deputation shall, however, be free to approach this Court for redress, if any.

45. The above arrangement cannot, in our opinion, solve the manpower requirement of CBI fully. The nature of the problem actually calls for intervention of this Court as deficiency in manpower is almost invariably projected as a reason for the inability of CBI to take up matters whenever any question of reference to CBI arises for consideration. The data furnished by Mr Ranjit Kumar suggests that there are, at present, large number of vacancies in CBI in different ranks. The information furnished, however, is deficient inasmuch as it is not clear as to how many of these vacancies are to be filled up on deputation basis and how many by making substantive appointments to CBI cadre.

46. We, therefore, deem it fit to direct CBI to furnish the following information to enable this Court to issue appropriate directions in regard to filling up of the vacancies and, if necessary, revision of the cadre strength:

(i) What is the current cadre strength of CBI in different ranks from the post of Constable to the post of Director;

(ii) When was the cadre strength last revised and by what order;

(iii) What was the number of cases pending with CBI on the date of the last revision of the cadre strength;

(iv) What is the number of cases currently under investigation by CBI;

(v) What is the impediment in filling up the unfilled vacancies and what steps, if any, have been taken for filling up the available vacancies;

(vi) Is there any proposal for revision of the cadre strength. If there is none, what is the reason for the omission;

(vii) What is the stage at which the process, if any, of filling up of the vacancies is currently stuck.

47. Mr Ranjit Kumar prays for and is granted two weeks' time to furnish the above information on affidavit. These matters shall, accordingly, stand adjourned and shall be listed on 14-9-2015.

48. Needful be done in the meantime.

SLP (C) No. 21834 of 2015

49. No one appears for the State of Assam despite service of notice. The petitioner is directed to serve the notice on the Standing Counsel for the State of Assam.

50. Dasti, in addition, is also permitted. List the matter along with main matter on 14-9-2015.

Judgment dated 16-10-2015

(Before T.S. Thakur and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)

IA No. 16 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013 with SLP (C) No. 21834 of 2015

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

T.S. Thakur, J.— Leave granted.

52. In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 768 this Court directed transfer of cases registered in different police stations in the State of West Bengal against Saradha Group of Companies and all such cases registered against any other company to the Central Bureau of Investigation for a fair and credible investigation including investigation, if necessary, into the larger conspiracy angle and the money trail involved in the commission of the offences. By the same order, we had allowed Writ Petition (C) No. 413 of 2013 and Writ Petition (C) No. 324 of 2014 and directed transfer of cases registered against 44 other chit fund companies for a similar investigation. The cases involving chit fund deposits across several States in the eastern part of the country involved several companies, and a scam that was estimated to be over Rs 20,000,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty thousand crores) at the relevant point of time. As many as 25 lakh claims were said to have been lodged by the depositors before the Commissions of Inquiry set up by the States of Odisha and West Bengal which too was indicative of the magnitude of the Scam. The Scam had inter-State ramifications apart from international money-laundering dimensions involving several persons in public life. It puts a question mark on the role of regulators like SEBI and Reserve Bank of India. The investigation by CBI was in that backdrop held to be the only effective method of bringing the truth to light unearthing the ramifications and bringing to book all those involved in the Scam.

53. CBI has, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, taken over the investigation of the cases in question and made significant headway towards completion of the same. While the investigation was still in progress Writ Petition No. 15 of 2013 was filed in public interest by the respondents in which they prayed for transfer of a large number of other cases to CBI on the analogy of the order passed by this Court in Subrata Chattoraj case (2014) 8 SCC 768. The High Court of Gauhati has, by order dated 8-5-2015, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Central Government to issue a notification transferring all chit fund cases registered in the State of Assam to the Central Bureau of Investigation with a direction to CBI to investigate the said cases. Further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where charge-sheets have already been filed have also been directed by the Court. The present appeal filed by CBI assails the correctness of the said direction. CBI has, at the same time, filed IA No. 16 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013 (Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India) in which it has prayed for modification of our order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768 to the following extent:

“(i) That CBI may be permitted to undertake the investigation for only 70 FIRs in relation to non-Saradha Group of Companies. In all other cases pertaining to non-Saradha Group of Companies in the State of West Bengal i.e. other than those 70 FIRs where CBI has registered 9 cases, these may kindly be directed to be continued/pursued in accordance with law by the local police of West Bengal. It may be directed by this Hon'ble Court that CBI need not take up other cases in the State of West Bengal.

(ii) The local State Police of Orissa and West Bengal are continuing to receive complaints regarding chit fund frauds even after 9-5-2014 i.e. the date of the judgment (2014) 8 SCC 768 of this Hon'ble Court. In all those cases, there is neither any direction nor is there any requirement for CBI to take up investigation in all FIRs which are registered by the State Police authorities in the State of West Bengal after 9-5-2014. Therefore, a clarification/direction deserves to be issued by the orders of this Hon'ble Court directing the State of West Bengal and State of Orissa to take all necessary steps, in accordance with law, pertaining to all those chit fund fraud FIRs which are registered in these States after 9-5-2014.

(iii) That similar direction would deserve to be issued with regard to chit fund cheating/fraud cases registered by the police authorities in the State of Assam as well as in the State of Tripura after 9-5-2014 i.e. this Hon'ble Court directing the States of Assam and Tripura to take all necessary steps, in accordance with law, pertaining to all those chit fund fraud FIRs which are registered in these States after 9-5-2014.

(iv) Any other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts stated and submissions made hereinabove.

It is prayed accordingly.”

54. One of the main reasons which CBI has advanced in support of its prayer for modification is that CBI is a small organisation with limited material and human resources and preoccupied with Coal Scam and 2G Scam cases entrusted to it. Transfer of a large number of cases relating to chit fund scam in the States of Assam, Odisha and West Bengal will, according to CBI, bring it under tremendous pressure which, according to the averments made in the application, CBI cannot handle with the existing manpower and other infrastructure at its disposal.

55. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 27-7-2015 it was argued by Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, that there was severe manpower deficit in CBI which was hampering its functioning and the investigations entrusted to it. The learned ASG placed on record a statement indicating the requirement of additional manpower for registration of 265 non-Saradha group cases pertaining to the State of West Bengal. In the statement CBI appeared to be asking for 10 Superintendents of Police, 15 investigating officers, 30 Dy Superintendents of Police, 85 investigating officers in the rank of Inspectors, 40 Sub-Inspectors, 20 Assistant Sub-Inspectors and 30 Head Constables. It was submitted that the State of West Bengal had been requested to provide the additional manpower required to undertake and complete the investigations but the State had expressed its inability to do so. The response of the State of West Bengal to the projected manpower requirement was placed on record by Mr Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel, in the form of an additional affidavit according to which as many as 26,213 vacancies in different cadres including Superintendents of Police, Additional Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police, etc. remain to be filled up in the said State. It was submitted by Mr Nageswara Rao that since a large number of cases arose from the State of West Bengal, the State Government was not averse to providing a reasonable number of officers to CBI, despite its own constraints. It was suggested that the Director General of Police, Government of West Bengal and the Director, CBI, could evolve an acceptable arrangement as regards the number of officers to be deputed to CBI and the cadre from which they would be drawn. We had accepted that suggestion and directed the two officers to work out an acceptable arrangement on the subject.

56. When the matter appeared again before us on 24-8-2015, it was pointed out that the Director General of Police, State of West Bengal, was not prepared to spare more than three Deputy Superintendents of Police, two Inspectors, five Sub-Inspectors and ten Constables to ease the manpower crunch faced by CBI. This number was, according to Mr Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General, appearing for CBI, totally inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr Kumar argued that as against the total cadre strength of 4544 officers of different ranks ranging from Constables to the Director, CBI was somehow managing the show with a strength of 3790 officers leaving a deficit of 724 officers in different cadres. We had in that view directed the Government of West Bengal to at least double the number of officers it was ready to lend to CBI in order to enable CBI to tide over the difficulty. The State was asked to prepare a panel of 12 Deputy Superintendents of Police, 8 Inspectors, 20 Sub-Inspectors and 40 Constables from out of which CBI would select, according to the prevalent criteria, 6 Deputy Superintendents of Police, 4 Inspectors, 10 Sub-Inspectors and 20 Constables for deputation to CBI. It was also directed that those selected by CBI shall regardless whether they were consenting for such deputation be taken on deputation keeping in view the fact that investigation into cases transferred to CBI was in national interest and those selected for serving CBI were expected to respond to the call of duty towards the nation. We had further directed that no court shall entertain any petition on behalf of any of the officers sent by the State of West Bengal on deputation to CBI but those aggrieved of such deputation shall be free to approach this Court. Having said that we had formulated seven queries for CBI to answer in regard to the current cadre strength, revision of the said cadre strength in the past and the number of cases currently pending with CBI for investigation as also the steps taken and the impediments, if any, in filling up the unfilled vacancies. CBI was directed to respond to the said queries and to give a clear picture as to the nature of the problems and the possible solution to the same.

57. CBI has, pursuant to the said direction filed an additional affidavit in which it has tabulated the current cadre strength in different ranks as under:

Designation of post Sanctioned strength Deputation quota Promotion quota Direct quota LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) Director 1 0 0 0 0 Spl./Addl. Director (SD/AD) 4 0 0 0 0 Joint Director (JD) 18 14 4 0 0 Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) 39 33 6 0 0 Sr. Superintendent of Police (Sr. SP) 10 0 10 0 0

Superintendent of Police (SP) 101 63 38 0 0 Addl. Superintendent of Police (ASP) 91 0 91 0 0 Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) 265 27 209 0 29 Inspector 908 417 491 0 0 Sub-Inspector (SI) 414 0 83 243 88 Asstt. Sub-Inspector (ASI) 207 0 145 0 62 Head Constable 583 0 408 0 175 Constable 1903 1903 0 0 0 Total 4544 2462 1485 243 354

58. In answer to Query 2 raised by this Court the affidavit states that no comprehensive revision of CBI cadre strength has taken place since the formation of CBI in the year 1963 no matter the cadre strength has been increased over the years in a piecemeal manner with a view to establishing the presence of CBI in those areas of the country where there was no CBI office despite a requirement for the same. The creation of posts in different cadres has been indicated by CBI as under:

“(i) Creation of 336 posts for 08 new branches—DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India) vide Order No. 21-4-2009-AVD.II dated 30-8-2010 conveyed approval of the competent authority for creation of 336 posts for 08 new CBI branches. It is respectfully submitted that creation of these posts was meant for 08 new branches i.e. Srinagar, Shimla, Thiruvananthapuram, Port Blair, Chhattisgarh, Imphal, Ghaziabad and Pune with the object to undertake anti-corruption work in those areas of country which were not covered earlier.

(ii) Creation of 01 post of Joint Director/North-Eastern Region—DoPT vide Order No. 22-73-2010-AVD.II dated 9-4-2012 conveyed approval of the competent authority for creation of one post of Joint Director. It is respectfully submitted that this post was created exclusively for North-Eastern Region.

(iii) Creation of 88 posts for 22 additional Special Courts—DoPT vide Order No. 245-63-2012-AVD.II (Pt. IV) dated 28-5-2013 conveyed approval of the competent authority for creation of 88 posts [1 Public Prosecutor, 1 Pairvi Officer (Inspector), 1 Naib Court (Head Constable) and 1 Stenographer for each court] for conducting/helping prosecution in 22 additional Special Courts in different States/UTs in the country. It is clarified that these posts were created only for conducting/helping prosecution work and not for investigation work.”

59. In answer to Query 4 touching the number of cases under investigation by CBI and number of cases pending with CBI at the time of increase in the cadre strength mentioned above CBI has given the following figures:

Date No. of cases pending 30-8-2010 1007 31-3-2012 1012 31-5-2013 1037 31-8-2015 1241

60. So also the break-up of 724 vacancies in CBI in all cadres has been set out by CBI in the affidavit as under:

Rank Vacancies Deputation quota Promotion quota Direct quota LDCE Director 0 0 0 0 0 SD/AD 2 2 0 0 0 JD 3 3 0 0 0 DIG 13 10 3 0 0 Sr. SP 6 0 6 0 0 SP 34 25 9 0 0 Addl. SP 24 0 24 0 0 Dy. SP 44 0 7 0 28 Inspector 114 100 14 0 0 Sub-Inspector 247 0 56 150 41 ASI 33 0 23 0 10 Head Constable 36 0 27 0 9 Constable 168 168 0 0 0 Total 724 317 119 150 88

61. As regards the steps taken by CBI for filling up of the vacancies, the affidavit states as under:

“That the following steps are being taken by CBI for filling up the vacancies:

Rank Steps taken/being taken Joint Director/JD (3 vacancies) 04 IPS officers working as DIGs in CBI have been empanelled to hold IG level post at Centre on 17-8-2015 and their cases are being processed for induction as JD in CBI since 17-8-2015. Deputy Inspector General of Police/DIG (13 vacancies) 08 IPS officers presently working as SP in CBI have been empanelled to hold DIG level post at Centre on 2-9-2015 and their cases are being processed for induction as DIG in CBI since 2-9-2015. Sr. Superintendent of Police/Sr. SP (6 vacancies) A proposal seeking relaxation in the eligibility criteria in respect of 16 SSP of CBI for consideration of their promotion to the rank of Sr. SP was sent to DoPT on 1-12-2014. DoPT allowed relaxation in respect of 3 SSP on 11-6-2015. However, the said proposal is pending in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 22-5-2015 in WP (C) No. 7370 of 2010 filed by Shri S.K. Khare. Superintendent of Police/SP (34 vacancies) Joining of 1 IPS officer is awaited. Cadre clearance with respect to 3 IPS officers has been obtained on 25-8-2015 and 27-8-2015. Proposal to fill up 7 vacancies of SP has been sent to DoPT on 10-8-2015 for onward transmission to UPSC for convening the meeting of DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee). Addl. Superintendent of Police/ASP (24 vacancies) (i) A proposal for relaxation of eligibility criteria for 26 officers has been sent to DoPT on 30-12-2014.

(ii) Proposal for relaxation of 15 more officers has been sent to DoPT on 10-9-2015. Deputy Superintendent of Police/DSP (44 vacancies) (i) Interview held from 1-9-2015 to 3-9-2015 for filling up of 08 vacancies under deputation quota. (ii) Approval of modalities for holding LDCE for filling 28 posts was obtained on 14-8-2015. Inspector (114 vacancies) (i) 71 Sub-Inspectors promoted as Inspector vide order dated 5-9-2015 after seeking relaxation from DoPT. (ii) DO letter from DCBI issued to DGs of States and CPOs on 4-9-2015 for circulation for nominating names of willing/eligible officials for induction as Inspector in CBI on deputation basis. Sub-Inspector/SI (247 vacancies) (i) Offers of appointment have been issued to 63 candidates for reporting at CBI Academy on 14-9-2015. (ii) A requisition for 93 dossiers was sent on 25-11-2014 to SSC for filling up vacancies. (iii) 12 Sub-Inspectors selected under LDCE, 2015. Offer of appointment issued for joining at CBI Academy on 14-9-2015. (iv) 14 officers promoted on 29-6-2015. Asstt. Sub-Inspector/ASI (33 vacancies) (i) DPC meeting for promotion of 22 HCs to ASI was held on 22-7-2015. (ii) Examination for promotion of HCs/General Duty cadre (GD) to ASI/GD conducted on 27-6-2015. Interview of qualifying candidates was held on 3-9-2015 and 4-9-2015. Result awaited. Head Constable (36 vacancies) (i) Integrity certificate/Vigilance clearance and APAR grading in respect of 53 Constables have been called for on 31-8-2015 for consideration of their promotion. (ii) LDCE of Constable to the rank of Head Constable, for the year 2015 held on 22-8-2015 in CBI Academy. Result awaited. Constable (168 vacancies) (i) 42 Constables of Central Police organisations and State Police have been selected. Their joining is awaited. (ii) Approx. 100 nominations received from various organisations are under process of selection. (iii) Nominations of approx. 125 Constables have been called from different police forces against existing and anticipated vacancies.”

62. Impediments in filling up the unfilled vacancies have also been enumerated by CBI in the following words:

“(i) Residency (eligibility) period for promotion — Non-availability of eligible officers for promotion in the rank of ASI to Sr. SP due to non-completion of residency period required for promotion under the Recruitment Rules is an impediment in filling up the vacancies. CBI has written to DoPT for seeking relaxation in eligibility criteria.

(ii) Higher grade pay in State Police — CBI is facing difficulty in filling vacancies under deputation quota particularly in two ranks i.e. Constable and Inspectors from some States viz. Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Assam due to higher grade pay in the analogous post. As per DoPT OM dated 17-6-2010 Para 3.3., a person in higher grade pay/scale of pay shall not be appointed on deputation to a post in lower grade pay/scale of pay if the deputation is from Central Government to Central Government and also in cases where the scale of pay and dearness allowance in the parent cadre post and ex-cadre post are similar.

(iii) Cadre clearance/NOC by States/CPOs — Candidates shortlisted by CBI for deputation from State Police forces/CPOs require clearance for that purpose by respective competent authorities of the States/CPOs. In many cases, the cadre clearance/NOC from States/CPOs is not forthcoming.”

63. Proposals for increase of cadre strength of CBI which are under consideration of the Government of India have been enumerated in Paras 10(i) to 10(iv) of the affidavit as under:

“(i) Proposal dated 2-9-2011 regarding strengthening of CBI by creation of 2063 posts in different ranks in three phases (Phase I — 711 posts). This proposal is currently pending consideration with Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India.

(ii) Proposal dated 15-1-2014 was sent for creation of 252 additional posts of Head Constables and Constables for execution of summons/warrants arising out of creation of 70 additional Special Courts. This proposal is currently pending consideration with DoPT, Government of India.

(iii) Proposal dated 31-7-2015 was sent for setting up new zone AC-HQ-II by creation of 496 posts in different ranks for VYAPAM case in two phases i.e. Phase I — 322 posts and Phase II — 174 posts. This proposal is currently pending consideration with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India.

(iv) Proposal dated 12-8-2015 was sent for setting up new zone EO-III by creation of 410 posts in different ranks for Chit Fund/Ponzi Scheme Scam cases in two phases i.e. Phase I — 278 posts and Phase II — 132 posts. This proposal is currently pending consideration with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India.”

64. More importantly, CBI's affidavit candidly concedes that a comprehensive revision of cadre strength is long overdue and such a step is necessary for strengthening CBI in meeting the emerging challenges. The affidavit states:

“That a comprehensive revision of cadre strength of CBI is long overdue and such a step will definitely strengthen the organisation and help CBI in meeting the emerging challenges and fulfil the increasing expectations of the society.”

65. The absence of a comprehensive review of cadre strength ever since the organisation came to be established is somewhat surprising to say the least. The averments made in the passage extracted above shows as if CBI is itself crying for a comprehensive revision of the cadre strength. We are at a loss to understand why such a revision has not been carried out so far and why should it be left to Court to direct a revision which in its very nature is a governmental function in the performance of which there ought to be no deficit.

66. The data furnished by CBI further shows that creation of vacancies and filling up of such vacancies has suffered primarily because of a lackadaisical attitude of the departments concerned towards a matter of significant public importance directly related to the administration of justice and the rule of law. For instance, despite 2 vacancies in the cadre of Special Directors, no steps appear to have been taken thus far. So also against 3 vacancies in the cadre of Joint Directors the appointment process is reported to have been initiated but only in August 2015.

67. Similarly, there are 13 vacancies in the cadre of DIGs against which only 8 appointments are said to be under process that too since 2-9-2015. Against 6 vacancies in the cadre of Sr. SPs, the proposal for relaxation seems to be languishing since 1-12-2014 except in three cases where DoPT is said to have responded to the proposal. The position in regard to remaining vacancies in the cadre of DSPs and below is no different. There are 34 vacancies in the cadre of SPs against which a proposal for 7 vacancies appears to have been sent to DoPT as recently as on 10-8-2015. Nothing is said about the remaining vacancies nor any reason given for not filling up of the same. Against 24 vacancies in the cadre of ASPs also only a proposal for relaxation of eligibility criteria appears to have been sent to DoPT which has not so far fructified.

68. The position in regard to lower cadre is even worse. As for instance there are 114 vacancies in the cadre of Inspectors, 47 vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, 33 vacancies in the cadre of ASIs, 36 vacancies in cadre of Head Constables and 168 in the cadre of Constables. While it is true that a comprehensive review of cadre strength is overdue, there is little or practically no explanation for the failure of the Government to fill up the vacancies that stand sanctioned and are available for being filled up by the Government. The impression that one gathers from the current state of affairs and the neglect and apathy of the past is that filling up of vacancies is a low priority area for the Government, no matter the number of cases has gradually increased forcing CBI to throw up its hands and plead inability to take over and complete investigation into cases of considerable importance because of the manpower crunch. This is not a happy situation to say the least. Cases transferred to CBI are not run of the mill cases involving ordinary crimes or criminals nor is CBI an ordinary investigating agency. It is a specialised agency which has on account of its dispassionate and sustained hard work earned for itself a certain amount of credibility in the minds of the people of this country. Whenever cases of public importance apart from cases of corruption against the Central Government employees and people in high places come to occupy the centre stage of public attention, people cry for a CBI investigation in the hope that the investigation would unravel the truth regardless of the influence or clout, political or otherwise, of those being investigated. Courts have also reposed confidence in the fairness of investigation of CBI despite accusations that are at times made that even CBI can be misused. What is important is that CBI is today a premier investigating agency handling a considerably large number of cases of significant public importance. Saradha Chit Fund Scam is just one such case apart from many others which are currently in the courts or under investigation. The question is whether indifference or apathy can be allowed to frustrate either the cause of justice or become an instrument of oppression and injustice implicit in an unduly delayed completion of investigation. Our answer is in the negative. We say so because quick and effective investigation has been recognised by this Court in a series of judgments delivered over the past few decades to be a part of right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.

69. We may, in this regard, refer to some of the decisions which have recognised fair, effective and speedy investigation as one of the facets of the guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

70. In Nimeon Sharma v. State of Meghalaya (1980) 1 SCC 700, this Court held that the delay in investigation and trials was a wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that criminal justice breaks down at a point when expeditious trial is not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. Speaking for the Court Krishna Iyer, J. said:

“4. … Criminal justice breaks down at a point when expeditious trial is not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in Sections 167, 209 and 309 has emphasised the importance of expeditious disposal of cases including investigations and trials. It is unfortunate, indeed pathetic, that there should have been such considerable delay in investigations by the police in utter disregard of the fact that a citizen has been deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is accused of an offence. We do not approve of this course and breach of the rule of law and express our strong displeasure at this chaotic state of affairs verging on wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under the Constitution especially under Article 21 as interpreted by this Court.”

71. In Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, this Court held that fair, just and reasonable procedure was implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and that Article 21 guarantees a right to the accused to be tried speedily. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances, observed this Court. What is important is that right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 was held to encompass all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The following passage is, in this regard, apposite:

“86. In view of the above discussion, the following propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard-and-fast rules. These propositions are:

(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

(2) Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view.”

(emphasis supplied)

72. In Hussainara Khatoon (4) v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98, AIR 1979 SC 1369, this Court ruled that:

“10. … The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. It is also a constitutional obligation of this Court, as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people, as a sentinel on the qui vive, to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial by issuing the necessary directions to the State which may include taking of positive action, such as augmenting and strengthening the investigative machinery, setting up new courts, building new court houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment of additional Judges and other measures calculated to ensure speedy trial.”

73. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 this Court declared that the concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into finality, can be averted. The following passage is, in this regard, relevant:

“86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

74. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578, this Court held that the mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself, have persuaded the constitutional court of the country in holding the right to speedy trial, a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial, in short everything commencing with an accusation and expiring with the final verdict—the two being respectively the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem—of the journey which an accused must necessarily undergo once faced with an implication. The constitutional philosophy propounded as a right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two-and-a-half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far-off peak.

75. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment any further with reference to the decided cases that declare in unequivocal terms that right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to speedy justice which implies not only the right to speedy trial but right to speedy investigation in criminal cases as well. Investigation by ordinary State Investigating Agencies are often quick but not so very scientific and focused for a variety of reasons including the fact that the investigating branch of the State Police is either ill-trained in modern and scientific techniques of investigation or ill-equipped to handle complicated matters that require professional training and equipment, deeper understanding of the nuances of law and greater motivation to discover the truth. While these are found in a greater measure among those working for the Central Bureau of Investigation, the problem that has of late arisen is that of manpower crunch and the ever-increasing number of cases involving large scams transferred to CBI for investigation. The demand for CBI investigation into several other cases of public importance also appears to be increasing by the day. Courts are often hesitant, if not reluctant, to transfer cases to CBI knowing fully well that its hands are full with large number of cases already transferred for investigation. But that can be no reason why the agency should not be fully equipped in terms of men and material both to take up investigations whenever called upon to do so either by the Government or by the courts. In a democratic country like ours governed by the rule of law citizens are entitled to not only expect but demand that investigations ought to be fair and effective as much as they ought to be quick and efficient. It is no answer to say that the agency's hands are full of or that it does not have the manpower to handle cases, no matter circumstances justify or demand investigation by any agency from outside a given State.

76. Suffice it to say that CBI as a Centrally controlled investigating agency cannot afford to lose the advantage of it being seen by the citizens and the courts as a credible agency. It can ill-afford to do so on account of shortage of manpower or any other constraint. It is, therefore, time for the Central Government to direct a comprehensive revision of the cadre strength of the Central Bureau of Investigation and take immediate steps for filling up the vacancies that are already sanctioned. In the result we deem it fit to issue the following directions:

76.1. The Central Government shall as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from today take steps for a comprehensive revision of the cadre strength of the Central Bureau of Investigation established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. The revision of the cadre strength when ordered shall be completed within a period of four months from the date the Government issues the necessary directions.

76.2. Pending comprehensive revision of the cadre strength as per (1) above, the Central Government shall take immediate steps at the appropriate level to fill up the available vacancies within the existing cadre. This would imply that the Government attends to and processes on urgent basis all proposals currently pending at different levels of the hierarchy to which we have made a reference in the body of this order.

76.3. The Government of West Bengal shall, as already directed, forward a panel of 12 Deputy Superintendents of Police, 8 Inspectors, 20 Sub-Inspectors and 40 Constables to enable CBI to select from out of the said panel, 6 Deputy Superintendents of Police, 4 Inspectors, 10 Sub-Inspectors and 20 Constables for deputation to CBI. The needful shall be done within four weeks if not already done by the Government of West Bengal in which case CBI shall expedite the process of selecting personnel to be taken on deputation to mitigate its current manpower requirement.

77. IA No. 16 of 2015 is disposed of with the above directions.

Order dated 30-11-2015

(Before Dr T.S. Thakur and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)

IA No. 20 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013

78. Heard. We had by our order dated 9-5-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 768 directed transfer of cases registered against 44 companies, mentioned in our order dated 26-3-2014, passed in Alok Jena v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 796. We had also permitted CBI to conduct further investigations into all such cases in which charge-sheets had already been filed. The present application (IA No. 20) now seeks a direction to CBI to take over the investigation of 17 cases registered against Seashore Group of Companies in terms of the directions mentioned above.

79. Mr Suresh Chandra Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that Seashore is one of the 44 companies, mentioned in our order dated 26-3-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 796. He submits that the cases registered against the said Companies also stood transferred to CBI for investigation. He submits that according to his instructions as many as 39 cases have been registered against the said Companies, all of which have not been taken up by CBI for investigation despite the direction of this Court. He prays for a direction to CBI to take up investigation in the remainder of the cases.

80. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, and Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents, submit that there are in all 39 different cases registered against Seashore Group of Companies. Investigation in as many as 17 such cases has already been completed by the jurisdictional police and charge-sheets filed before the jurisdictional Magistrates. The remaining 22 cases alone were, therefore, under investigation when the transfer order was passed by this Court. It is submitted by Mr Kumar that investigation in all these 22 cases was taken up by CBI and in one of such cases the same stands completed and a charge-sheet filed. He submits that further investigation in cases that have already been presented before the jurisdictional Magistrates by State Police will also be in due course taken up, if necessary, and appropriate supplementary charge-sheets filed wherever such investigation is conducted. That submission in our view obviates the need for any further direction in this application.

81. CBI, it is evident, is fully cognizant of the order passed by this Court and its obligation to investigate the cases against Seashore Group of Companies which is one of the 44 companies, referred to in our order. We only hope and trust that CBI expedites the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheets in all such cases in which the same have not been filed. CBI would also obviously review the need for holding further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC in cases where charge-sheets have already been filed by State Police.

82. With these observations, this application (IA No. 20) is disposed of.

83. At this stage, Mr Joydeep Mazumdar, learned counsel for the State of West Bengal, points out that pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on 24-8-2015, the State of West Bengal has already sent a panel of officers to CBI to enable it to select officers to be taken on deputation to that agency. Mr Kumar has been given a copy of communication dated 29-9-2015 from the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Government of West Bengal, to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI. He submits that if the panel of officers has been submitted to CBI it will waste no time in making an appropriate selection of suitable officers considered fit for deputation to CBI.