Supreme Court of India
ANUKUL CHANDRA PRADHANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1149
- Decided
- 7 October 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S VERMA
Holding
Once a charge‑sheet is filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the competent trial court alone adjudicates the case, and the Supreme Court's role is limited to ensuring that the duty of investigation is performed.
Summary
The petition under Article 32 sought Supreme Court directions to ensure that investigations by the CBI and other agencies into alleged crimes by public functionaries were completed and charge‑sheets filed. The Court noted that charge‑sheets had already been filed in three cases (St. Kitts forgery, Lakhubhai Pathak cheating, and Rajendra Jain) under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It held that once a charge‑sheet is filed, the competent trial court alone decides the merits, and the Supreme Court cannot order further investigation in those matters. The Court reiterated the need for speedy trial, preferably within three months, as read into Article 21, and warned that publicity should not prejudice the presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the proceeding was closed with respect to the three cases, while it will continue for any remaining matters.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court can direct further investigation after a charge‑sheet has been filed under Section 173 CrPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court may intervene in the merits of criminal proceedings once a charge‑sheet is filed.
- Whether the Court can prescribe a time‑frame for the speedy trial of public officials under Article 21.
- Whether the duty of investigation by government agencies under Article 32 can be enforced through a writ.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 173
- Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32
Subjects
Article 32Article 21CBI investigationCharge‑sheetSection 173 CrPCSpeedy trialPublic functionariesJudicial directionRule of law
Judgment
A ANUKULCHANDRAPRADHAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 7, 1996
B [J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950 :
Articles 21 and 32---C.B.l. inquiry against public functionaries-Direc-
C tions by this Court to investigate into the accusations against the persons
concemed--Charge-sheets filed by C.B.I. in three cases-Held, in view of the
fact that charge-sheets have been filed in the cases in competent court, it is
that court which is now to deal with the case on merits-Any direction
considered necessary for further investigation etc. is within the domain of the
court concemetJ-.,.1he purpose of this proceeding it to command perfonnance
D of the duty under law to property investigate into the accusation of commis-
sion of the crime and to file a charge-sheet in the competent court if a prima
facie case is made out....:..1his purpose has been served in three cases-This
proceeding has come to an end in so far as it relates to the said three Criminal
Cases--For the remaining part it is to continue till the end result prescribed
E by law is achieved-Unless prevented by any dilatory tactics of the accused,
all trials of this kind involving public men should be concluded most ex-
peditiously preferably within three months of commencement of the trial.
Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1996) 2 SCC 199,
referred to.
F
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 640 of
1995.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
G
Anil B. Divan, (AC), Mukul Mudgal, (AC), (Anukul Chandra Prad-
han) (In-person), A.K. Sahu and R.S. Sodh~ for the Petitioners.
Ashok Desai, Attorney General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor
General, Dr. AM. Singhvi, (Sushi! Kr. Jain), (NP), P. Parmeshwaran,
H Pallav Sisodia and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents.
212
......
AC. PRADHAN v. U.0.1. 213
The following Order of the Court was delivered : A
The nature of this proceeding is similar to that of W.P. {Crl.) Nos.
340-343of1993 - Veneet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India Ors., It was made
clear at the outset and reiterated from time to time in this proceeding to
the Revenue Secretary, Director of C.B.I. and the other Government
officials that the orders made in W.P. {Crl.) Nos. 340-343of 1993 regarding B
the mode of functioning of all the officials equally apply in the present case
also. This is how, we have been assured by the learned Attorney General,
is the mode of functioning of all the officials in the present case also. It is.
needless to say that this manner of functioning by them has to continue.
For ready reference, an extract from one such order of particular C
significance is· quoted herein for emphasis. The order is dated 30-1-1996,
reported in [1996j 2 sec 199, wherein it was said :
"3. The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate
tha~ it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined
thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all government agencies, D
entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations
in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the
concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic
tenet of rule of law: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
Investigation into every accusation made apinst each and every E
person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status
of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously.
This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
working of the government agencies.
4. In this proceeding we are not concerned with the merits of p
the accusations or the individuals alleged to be involved, but only
with the performance of the legal duty by the government agencies
to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every such accusation
against every person, and to take the'logical final action in accord-
ance with law.
G
5. In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is made
out and a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court, it is that
court which will then deal with that case on merits, in accordance
with law.
(Paras 3, 4, 5) H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A In accordance with the directions so given, it has been reported to
us that chargesheets have been filed by the C.B.I. in two cases and .the
Delhi Police in one case which they were investigating. These cases are :
(1) St. Kitts' Forgery case ..
(Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)
B
(2) Lakhubhai Pathak C:::heating case.
(Chargesheet filed by C.B.I.)
c
(3) Rajendra Jain case
(Chargesheet filed by Delhi Police) -
In view of the fact that chargesheet has been filed under Section 173
Criminal Procedure Code in each of the above three cases in the com-
petent court, it is that court which is now to deal with the case on merits,
in accordance with law. Any direction considered necessary for further
D investigation, if any, or to proceed against any other person who also
appears to have committed any offence in that transaction, is within the
domain of the concerned court according to the procedure prescribed by
law. The purpose of this proceeding is to command performance of the
duty under law to properly investigate into the accusation of commission
E 1 of the crime and to file a chargesheet in the competent court, if a prima
f acie case is made out. This purpose has been served in the above three
cases, in respect• of which no further action in this proceeding is called for.
Accordingly, this proceeding has come to an end, in so far as it
relates to the above three criminal cases. For the remaining part, it is to
F continue. till the end result prescribed by law is achieved. The concerned
court in which the chargesheet has been filed has to proceed entirely in
accordance with law without the slightest impression that there is any
parallel proceeding in respect of the same matter pending in this court.
We may also observe, that the concerned court dealing with the
G above matters has to bear in mind that utmost expedition in the trial and
its early conclusion is necessary for the ends of justice and credibility of
the judicial process. Unless prevented by any dilatory tactics of the ac-
cused, all trials of this kind involving public men should be concluded most
expeditiously, preferably within three months of commencement of the
H trial. This is also the requirement of speedy trial read into Article 21.
AC. PRADHAN v. U.0.1. 215
A note of caution may be appropriate. No occasion should arise for A
an impression that the publicity attaching to these matters has tended to
dilute the emphasis on the essentials of a fair trial and the basis principles
of jurisprudence including the presumption of innocence of the accused
unless found guilty at the end of the trial. This requirement, undoubtedly
·has to be kept in view during the entire trial. It is reiterated, that any B
observation made by this Court for the purpose ofthe proceedings pending
here has no bearing on the merits of the accusation, and is not to influence
the trial in any manner. Care must be taken to ensure that the credibility
of the judicial process is not undermined in any manner.
...
This proceeding is to continue in respect of the remaining matters C
only which are incomplete.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court in each of the
above three cases.
R.P. Petition disposed of. D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 32"Sign in to search