DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.versusNIYAMAVEDI REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER K. NANDINI, ADVOCATE AND ORS.

    A                    DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
                             INVESTIGATION AND ORS.                                        .\
                                              v.
                 'NIYAMAVEDI' REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
                      K. NANDINI, ADVOCATE AND ORS.
    B                                 APRIL 5, 1995

                   [A.M. AHMADI, CJ, K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND
                           SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

    c         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 162 and 172 investiga-
        tion-Power of Court to inteifere-<:ourt should refrain from inteifering at
        premanire stage of investigation.

            Statements made to police during investigatiolt-f'olice diary>-Extent of
      use-Permissibility of-Held: Court should refrain from disclosing in its order
    D material contained in Police Diaries and statements.

             lnvestigatiolt'-(;omment by High Court on manner of investigation-        )
        Held Court should refrain from making such comments.

            During the investigation of the ISRO Espionage Case the respon-
    E
•     dent-organisation filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court praying
      that the first respondent, Inspector General of Police, Southern Zone,
      Kerala, be arrested for his alleged involvement in the case and he should
      be suspended from service. The High Court dismissed the petition and the
      Division Bench also dismissed the appeal. However, in order to examine           i
    F the contention relating to the alleged involvement of the first respondent
      in the crimes in question the Division Bench made reference in its judg-
      ment to the material disclosed in the course of the investigation viz., police
      diaries and the statements recorded during the course of investigation. It
      also made comments on the manner of investigation made by the CBI.
    G Against the order of Division Bench Special Leave Petition was filed in this
      Court.

              Disposing of the iletition, this Court                                   \..

              HELD : 1. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only a very
    H limited use can be made of the statements to th• police and police diaries,
                                            196
                  C.B.I. v. NJY AMAVED! [S.V. MANOHAR, J.J                   197

    even in the course of the trial, as set out in Sections 162 and 172. The A
    Division Bench, therefore, should have refrained from disclosing in its
    order, material contained in these diaries and statements, especially when
    the investigation in the very case was in progress. It should also have
    refrained from making any comments on the manner in which investiga-
    tion was being conducted by the CBI. (199-A, BJ
                                                                                    B
          2. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the
    increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences. Any

-   observations which may amount to interference in the investigation should
    not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a
    premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation
    and demoralise the investigation. (199-D, CJ                                    c
          3. Directions given to the Director of CBI in regard to the investiga-
    tion matters do not meet with this Court's approval and may be ignored.
    Ignoring the innuendoes the Court was, however, right in expressing a
    general view that the investigating agency is expected to act in an efficient   D
    and vigilant manner without being pressurised, and in the dismissing the
    appeal. (199-D, E)

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
    tion (Cr!.) No. 942 of 1995.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.95 of the Kerala High               E
    Court in Cr!. W.A. No. 1676 of 1994.

         D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor
    General, K. Parasaran, K. Swamy and P .Parmeswaran for the Petitioners.

          A.X. Verghese and M.K. D. Namboordiry for the Respondents.
                                                                                    F

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Investigation regarding Crime
    Nos. 225/94 and 246/94 of Police Station Vanchiyoor, Distt. Thiruvanan- G
    thapuram, Kerala State in what has come to be known as the !SRO
    Espionage Case, were initially carried out by the State Police. On 3rd of
    December, 1994, at the request of the State of Kerala, investigation was
    entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the Government of
    India. Consequently, cases RC lO(S)/94 and RC and RC ll(S)/94 were
    registered in SIC.II Branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation. On H
    198                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A completion of investigation in RC lO(S)/94, a chargesheet has been filed
    before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, ~erala on 17th of Decem-            \
    ber, 1994. Investigation of case RC ll(S)/94 is continuing.

          After the entrustment of the investigation to the Central Bureau of
  Investigation on 3rd of December, 1994, and while the investigation was in
B progress, O.P. No. 17367 of 1994 was filed on 13.12.1994 in the High Court
  of Kerala by an organisation called 'Niyamavedi' being public interest
  litigation, praying that the first respondent, Raman Srivastava, l.P.S., In-
  spector General of Police, Southern Zone, Kerala State, Trivandrum, be
  arrested by the Director, C.B.I., New Delhi for his alleged involvement in
C the said case and for a direction to the State of Kerala to suspend and
  remove the first respondent from service. A learned Single Judge of the
  High Court dismissed the petition with the observation that the power of
  interference of the Court in the subject in hand at that stage was very
  limited. He also recorded that statement of the State Government to the
  effect that the Government had no interest in unduly defending or shielding
D any officer and that the Government would proceed in the 'matter only
  when report from the C.B.I., which is investigating in the case, is received.      )
           In appeal, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, after a
    detailed judgment, rightly dismissed the appeal holding that no court has
E   power to direct the investigating officer to include a person as an accused
    in the case while the investigation is in progress. The petitioners before us,
    who are the Director, C.B.I., Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
    Director, Research and Analysis Wing and Director, Central Intelligence
    Bureau, however, have come before us asking for special leave to appeal          \.
F   from the appellate order of the Kerala High Court in view of certain
    observations which have been made by the Division Bench in the course
    of its order dismissing the appeal

        The petitioners had, as directed by the Division Bench, produced for
  perusal of the Court case diaries of the Kerala State Police as well as of
G the C.B.I. relating to the investigations carried out in respect of the said
  crimes including the statements recorded in the course of investigation and
  certain video cassettes in that connection. These were perused by the
  Division Bench in chambers. However, a reference at some length has been
  made in the course of the judgment to the material disclosed in the course
H of investigation, presumably, in order to examine the contention relating to
              C.B.I. v. NIYAMAVEDI [S.V. MANOHAR,J.]                   199
the alleged involvement of the first respondent in the crimes in question. A
Oearly, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only a very limited
use can be made of the statements to the police and police diaries, even
in the course of the trial, as set out in sections 162 and 172 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Division Bench, therefore, should have refrained
from disclosing in its order, material contained in these diaries and state- B
ments, especially when the investigation in the very case was in progress.
It should also have refrained from 'making any comments on the manner
in which investigation was being cor/ducted by the C.B.I. looking to the fact
that the investigation was far "from complete. Any observations which may
amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily
the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the C
investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the inves-
tigation. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the
increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences. We say
no more. However, we clarify that certain directions given to the Director
of C.B.I. in regard to the investigation mafre;s do not meet with our
approval and may be ignored. In short the ad~me-commen.is against the · D
 C.B.I. were, to say the least, premature and could have been avoided.
 Ignoring the innuendoes the Court was, however, right in expressing a
general view that the investigating agency is expected to act in an efficient
 and vigilant manner without being pressurised and in dismissing the appeal.
                                                                               E
       No purpose would, therefore, be served by granting the present
petition. With these observations, the special leave-petition is accordingly
disposed of.
T.N.A.'                                               Petition Disposed of.