P.S. RAJYAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

                                P.S. RAJYA                                       A
                                      v.
                         THE STATE OF BIHAR

                               MAY 9, 1996

          [DR. AS. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]                               B

      Prevention of Comtption Act, 1947 :

      S.5(2) r/w.s.5(1)(e}-Jncome Tax OfftceI-Assets alleged to have been
found disproportionate to his income-Criminal proceedings initiated by           C
C.B.J.-Depmtmental inquiry culminated in exoneration of delinquent on the
basis of report of Central Vigilance Commission, which was concurred by the
 UPSC--Central Vigilance Commission found the valuation of assets done by
Income Tax Department not disproportionate to tize income of the
employee-Petition for quashing the criminal proceedings dismissed by High
Court-Held, 011 the peculiar facts of the case, criminal proceedings initiated   D
against the appellant can not be pursued-The Charge in the departmental
proceedings and the aiminal proceedings is one and the same-Conduct of
CB.I. in dealing with the case and the manner in which it got the assets
revalued cannot be appreciated.

      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :                                         E

       S.482-Criminal Proceedings-Effect of exoneration of employee in
departmental proceedings on identical charges-Criminal proceedings under
Prevention of Corruption Act-Valuation of assets being basis of prosecu-
tion-Departmental proceedings on self-same charges culminating in exonera-
tion of delinquent on the basis of report of the Central Vigilance Commission    F
which was concurred by UPSC-Petition for quashing criminal proceedings
dismissed by High Court-Held, standard of proof required to establish guilt
in a criminal case is far higher than that required to establish guilt in
departmental proceedings-When the charge which is identical could not be
established in departmental proceedings, and in view of the discrepancies in     G
the reports, there is no reason to proceed further against the employee in
criminal proceedings-Circumstances in which criminal proceedings can be
quashed-Reiterated.

     State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, [1992] Supp.
1 SCR 335, relied on.                                                   H
                                  631
    632                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996\ SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 931, referred to.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    434 of 1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.93 of the Patna High Court
B in Crl. Misc. C. No. 5212 of 1992.

          Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant.

          B.B. Singh, P. Parmeshwaran and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents.

C         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

          The appeal was allowed with costs by our Order dated 27.3.1996
    reserving the reasons to be given later. Now the reasons are given.
D
          The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is
    whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the
    appellant under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(e) of the Prevention of
    Corruption Act 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge
E   the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light
    of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred
    by the Union Public Service Commission.

          Short facts are as under :

p          The appellant started his career in a college in the year 1955 and
    switched over to TISCO in the year 1959 till he was selected and appointed
    as Inspector in the Income Tax Service in the year 1961. The appellant's
    wife was also a teacher in the Central School at Bokaro steel city. She was
    allotted on long lease a plot at Bokaro in the year 1980 for a sum of Rs.
    20,000 by the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short" SAIL"). As per
G   terms and conditions imposed by SAIL, shops in the ground floor an.d
    residence at first floor were constructed by the appellant \vith his earnings
    as well as the earnings of his wife. The construction was strictly under the
    supervision and on the drawings supplied freeiy by SAIL township
    authority. Subsequently the building was valued by SAIL township engineer
H   at Rs. 4.75 lakhs.
                          P.S. RAJYA v. STATE                          633

      The appellanl in the meanwhile got promotion and was functioning A
as Income-tax Officer A-Ward, Dhanbad from 1981to1985. It appears that
in the course of discharge of his duties, he impounded the books of
accounts of certain business people who seemed to have complained to the
local Congress Party M.P. who in turn complained about the appellant to
the Minister of Finance with a request to transfer the appellani and to B
order for a CBI inquiry. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged on 9.4.1986 and
the appellant's residence and office were raided on 11.4.86. However,
nothing worth mentioning was found. Ultimately a charge-sheet was filed
on 31.7.89 showing the assets of the appellant consisting of cash, immovable
property (house) and jewellery as follows :
                                                                              c
        (i) Building at Bokaro             Rs. 7,69,300.00

        (ii) NSCs                          Rs.   82,500.00

        (iii) Bank balance                 Rs.    1,584.91
                                                                              D
        (iv) Household articles            Rs. 1,34,709.00

        Total                              Rs. 9,88,093.91

      As against this the estimated savings for the check period (1973) to
March 1986) was arrived at in the sum of Rs. 6,30,000 and on that basis it    E
was alleged that the assets were disproportionate to the extent of Rs.
3,57,439.00 ..

      The appellant aggrieved by the above charge being taken cognizance
of by the Special Judge challenged the same by moving the Patna High
Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. The High Court by order dated 3.8.90         F
allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Special Judge directing
him to get a preliminary enquiry conducted by higher authority of the
appellant or do it himself before taking cognizance of the matter.

      It is the grievance of the appellant that without strictly complying
with the remit order of the High Court, the Special Judge took cognizance G
of the matter and wanted to proceed further. Aggrieved by that the
appellant again' moved the Patna High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the cognizance of charge as mentioned above. This time the High
Court dismissed the petition holding that the issues raised before it have
to be gone into in the final proceedings and those cannot be raised at the H
    634                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A preliminary stage.

          The appellant aggrieved by the Order of the High Court has filed
    the above appeal by Special Leave.

          It may not be quite out of place just to mention how the appellant
B was persecuted, if we may use that expression on the facts of this case.

         On the basis of the FIR and consequential raid the appellant was
   placed under suspension on 24.11.86. No progress was shown nearly for
 · two years which obliged the appellant to move the Central Administrative
C Tribunal, Calcutta ("CAT" for short). On 1.6.88 the Tribunal directed the
   Government to complete the investigation within three months failing
   which the order of suspension would automatically stand revoked. Since
   the CBI did not complete the investigation as directed by CAT, the
   suspension stood automatically revoked. Thereafter the CBI got the
   appellant's house inspected by a team of three C.P.W.D. engineers on
D 27.9.88 on which date the appellant and his family members were away and
   the house was locked. The appellant was forced to move Central Ad-
   ministrative Tribunal, Patna for getting his promotional order and in that
   course the Tribunal passed some strictures against the authorities. At last
   the CBI filed a charge-sheet on 31.7.89 and the main basis for this charge-
E sheet was the valuation of the appellant's house at Bokaro which the CBI
   fixed at Rs. 7,69,300.00 as against the earlier valuation by the Income-tax
   Department at Rs. 4.67 lakhs.

          We may also mention that the only ground on which the arguments
    were addressed both by the learned counsel for the appellant and the
F   learned Sr. counsel for the respondent centred round the valuation fixed
    by the CBI to the appellant's house at Bokaro.

        Soon after the Special Judge took cognizance of the charge, the
  appellant was again placed under suspension on 31.5.90. As mentioned
  above by order dated 3.8.90 High Court of Patna quashed the cognizance
G taken by the Special Judge and remitted the matter for fresh CO!lsideration.
  The appellant again moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna for
  promotion and other reliefs which in turn directed the revocation of the
  order of suspension and also to release all increments from 1987 onwards
  and for opening of the sealed cover in which the appellant's promotion
H order had been placed by the Department. That order of the CAT was
                               P.S. RAJYA v. STATE                          635

     challenged by the Department in this Court and this Court dismissed the A
     SVicial Leave Petition ou 14.10.91. Simultaneously the appellant was given
     a departmental charge-sheet containing identical charges. For more than
     two years no progress was made by the Department as no Inquiry Officer
     was appointed. Again, the appellant was forced to move the CAT, Patna
     for quashing the departmental charge-sheet. A direction was given by the
                                                                                  B
     CAT, Patna on 22.2.1993 to complete the departmental enquiry by
     15.5.1995. The departmental enquiry was conducted by Central Vigilance
     Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission after a detailed en-
     quiry submitted a report exonerating the appellant of all the charges. '[he
     Department forwarded the report of the Central Vi[,'1lance Commission for
     the opinion of the Union Public Service Commission. By a long report, the c
     Union Public Service Commission concurred with the conclusion of ex-
     onerating the appellant of all the charges. Accepting the report of the
     Union Public Service Commission, the President passed the final orders in
     favour of the appellant. In spite of that we are informed that the appellant
     has not got the full retiral benefits.
                                                                                   D
           Now reverting to the merits of the case it is the contention of the
     learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the clear reports of the
     Central Vigilance Commission and the Union Public Service Commission
     concerning identical departmental charge, there is absolutely nothing for
     the prosecution to proceed further. He also submitted that notwithstanding    E
     the direction of the High Court to the Special Judge to hold a preliminary
     enquiry before taking cognizance of the charge sheet either by himself or
     through higher authorities of the appellant, the learned Special Judge has
     taken cognizance once again without holding any preliminary enquiry.
     Therefore, the order of the Special judge taking cognizance of the charge-    F
     sheet confirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained. On this point he
     placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin v.
     State of Madras, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 931. According to Mr. Prashant Bhushan
,.   the result of departmental enquiry must be taken as preliminary enquiry
     and in view of the exoneration order, further pf9ceedings in criminal
     charge should be dropped. Ii is the further submission of the learned         G
     counsel for the appellant that the very same engineers who have given the
     report earlier to the Income-tax Department now at the instance of the
     CBI, presumably on pressure, have given different valuation and here again
     there ate over-writings and alterations in several places. According to the
     learned counsel the Central Vigilance Commission has dealt with this H




                                                •
    636                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A aspect in its report elaborately and ultimately came to a conclusion that
    the subsequent valuation reports on which CBI placed reliance are of
    doubtful nature. The same view was taken by the Union Public Service
    Commission. Even otherwise the value given as basis for the charge-sheet
    is not the value given in the report subsequently given by the valuers.

B         Mr. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent,
    contended that both the learned Special Judge and the learned Single
    Judge of the High Court have not shut out the appellant from establishing
    his case in the final hearing and the points now raised can very well be
    established by giving evidence al the appropriate time and there is no case
C   made out for quashing the charge itself. According to the learned counsel
    notwithstanding the findings rendered under the departmental enquiry, the
    CBI is entitled to proceed on the basis of the material available and the
    mere allegation that the reports regarding the value of the building was of
    doubtful nature will not take the place of proof and that has to be gone
D   into and established in the final hearing after taking evidence of the
    concerned valuers. He, therefore, supported the orders of the learned
    Special Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

          At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the
    respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof
E   required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the
    standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental
    proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the
    departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the
    same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental
F   proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed
    further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant.
    For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a
    departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the
    reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to
    proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings. In this context, we
G   can usefully extract certain relevant portions from the report of the Central
    Vigilance Commission on this aspect.

             "Neither the prosecution nor the defence has produced the au)hor
             of various reports to confirm the valuation. The documents cited
H            in the list of documents is a report signed by two engineers namely
                  P.S.RAJYA v. STATE                            637

S/Sh. S.N. Jha and D.N. Mukherjee whereas the document brought A
on record (Ex. S-20) has been signed by three engineers. There is
also difference in the estimated value of the property in the
statement of imputation and the report. The document at Ex. S-20
has been signed by three engineers and the property has been
valued at Rs. 4,85,000 for the ground floor and Rs. 2,55,600 for the
second floor. A total of this comes to Rs. 7,40,900 which is totally B
different from the figure of Rs. 7,69,800 indicated in the statement
of imputation. None of the engineers who prepared the valuation
report though cited as prosecution witnesses appeared during the
course of enquiry. This supports the defence argument that the
authenticity cif this document is in serious doubts. It is a fact that C
the Income Tax Authorities got this property evaluated by S/Sh.
S.N. Jha and Vasudev and as per this report at pages 50 to 63 they
estimated the property at Rs. 4,57,600 including the cost of land
Rs. 1,82,000 for ground and manezaine floor plus Rs. 2,55,600 for
first floor and Rs. 20,000 for cost of land). Thus both the engineers
who prepared the valuation report for income tax purposes also D
prepared the report for the CBI and there is no indication in the
subsequent report as to why there is a difference in the value of
the property. A perusal of these two reports reveals that there is
difference in the specification of the work. The valuation report
prepared by Sh. S.N. Jha for ground floor for income tax purposes E
clearly states that the structure was having "RCC Pillars at places,
brick work in cement mortar, RCC lintal, 60 cm walls, 9 inch floor
height, 17.6, 8.00, 8.00 inch" but in the report for CBI which was
also prepared by him the description is "RCC framed structure
open warandah on three sides in the ground floor. Similarly, for
the first floor it is written in the report as "partly framed structure F
and partly load being walls, floor heights 3.20 mm. Further Sh. S.N.
Jha on page 54 of Ex. D-1 had adopted a rate of Rs. 290 per sq.
mtr. for ground floor and adding for extra height he had estimated
ground floor including mezaine floor at Rs. 2,02,600. But for the
report at Ex. S-20 the rate has been raised to 365 per sq. mtr. G
There is no explanation for. this increase of rate by Rs. 75 per mtr.
It is also observed that for the updating of the cost of index 5-%
was added to the rate of Rs. 290/as per page 55 of Ex. D-1 by Sh.
S.N. Jha but this has been raised to 97% as an. esclanation lo the
cost of index in Ex. S-20 without explaining or giving the reasons
therefore. It is surprising that same set of. engineers have adopted H
    638                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           different standard for evaluating the same property al different
            occasions. Obviously, either of the report- is false and it was for
            the prosecution to suitably explain it. In the absence of it the only
            inference to be drawn is that report at Ex-S-20 is not authentic.
            Since the same set of engineers have done the evaluation earlier
            and if subsequently they felt that there was some error in the earlier
B           report, they should have explained detailed reasons either in the
            report itself or during the course of enquiry. Therefore, Ex. S-20
            is not reliable.

            20. Moreover a perusal of Ex. S-20 reveals that Sh. Vasudev,
            Executive Engineer has recorded a note as follows:
c
               "Hence the valuation of Sh. S.N. Jha was never superceded by
            any other estimates. As is confirmed from the records, his es-
            timated figures were only accounted for by the ITO Bokaro".

D          Thus according to Sh. Vasudev, who was the senior-most among the
    three CPWD engineers who prepared Ex. S-20, the valuation of ground
    floor remains at Rs. 1,82,600 plus Rs. 20,000 for the cost of land. The first
    floor as per Ex. S-20 was estimated at Rs. 2,55,600 and a total of all this
    comes to Rs. 4,57,600 which is very nearer to the declaration of actuals to
E   the income tax authority and also the estimated cost by the Bokaro Steel
    Township Engineer and the Govt. approved valuer.

            21. It is clear from the above discussions that though the document
            cited in Annexure III is a joint report of two engineers what has
            been brought on record is a document signed by three engineers
F           the same set of engineers evaluated the property for income tax
            purposes and there is a vast difference in the specifications and
            the rates adopted for calculating the cost in Ex. S-20 have been
            increased without any explanation and none of these engineers
            were produced dnring the conrse of enquiry to clarify the position.
G           Hence the authenticity of Ex. S-20 is doubtful as claimed by the
            defence.

             22. It needs to be mentioned that the report at Ex. S-20 has
             e·;aluated the ground floor at Rs. 4,85,300 and a note to the effect
H            that 10% should be allowed for self supervision and procurement
                          P.S.RAJYA v.STATE                              639

        of material has also been recorded at the end. On this basis the A
        net value of ground floor comes to Rs. 4,36,810 (Rs. 4,85,344 Rs.
        48,534). The first floor has been evaluated at Rs. 2,55,600 after
        allowing the allowance for self supervision and.a total of both items
        would come to Rs. 6,62,410. Thus, even the report at ex. S-20 does
        not support the prosecution case that as per the report of CPWD B
        Engineers the property is valued at Rs. 7,69,800. As the property
        assessed by the income tax authority fnr Rs. 4.67 lakhs and even
        the valuation given by the Bokaro Steel Township Engineer and
        the Govt. approved valuer are very nearer to this figure, the
        reasonable value of this property could only be taken as 4.75 lakhs C
        assessed by the Bokaro Township Engineer on detailed estimate
        basis. 11

     I! may not be out of place to extract a portion from the order
exonerating the appellant from the charge framed in the departmental
proceedings. It reads as follows :                                               D

         The Commission after careful consideration of the facts and
        11



        records of the case, have advised that the savings of the applicant,
        Shri P.S. Rajya, were more than the assets acquired by him and,
        therefore, the charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate to       E
        income does not stand proved. A copy of the advice of the
        Commissioner i s enclosed. The Commission have also advised that
        the ends of justice would be met by exonerating the charged
        Officer, Shri P.S. Rajya.
                                                                                 F
        The President has given careful consideration to the facts and
        records of the case and advice of the UPSC. The President has
        come to the conclusion that the advice of the UPSC be accepted.
        It is, therefore, held that the Articles of charge framed against Shri
        Rajya has not been proved. The President is, therefore, pleased to       G
        exonerate Shri Rajya, AIT (Retd.) of the charges framed against
        him and drop the proceedings initiated •gains! him."

     We are inclined to think that the above extracts give a correct picture
about the issue.                                                             H
    640                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         At the risk of repetition, we may state that the charge had not been
    proved and on that basis the appellant was cleared of departmental en-
    quiry. In this connection, we may also usefully cite a decision of this Court
    in State of Hmyana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, [1992] Supp. 1
    SCC 335. This Court after considering almost all earlier decisions has given
    guidelines relating lo the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
B   226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
    Code of Criminal procedure for quashing an F.I.R. or a complaint. This
    Court observed as follows;

            "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the vanous relevant
c           provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles
            of la\V enunicated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
            the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
            inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
            extractt:d and reproduced above, \Ve give the follo\ving categories
D           of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
            exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
            other\vi:-.c to s12cure the ends of justice, though it may not be
            possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
            channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
            an exhau~tive list of myriad kinds of cases \Vhe.rein such power
E
            should be exercised.

             (l) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
             the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
             accepted in their entirety do not p1imc facie constitute any offence
F            or make out a case against the accused.

             (2) Where the allegation in the first information report and other
             materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cog-
             nizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under
G            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 m the FIR or
             complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
H            not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
                               P.S. RAJYA v. STATE                           641

             against the accused.                                                   A
             (4) Where, the allegations in.the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
             offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investiga-
             tion is permitted by a magistrate as contemplated under Section
             155(2) of the Code.
                                                                                    B
             (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 proceedings against the accused.

             (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
                                                                                    c
             provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
             criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and con-
             tinuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
             provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
             redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.                      D
              (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with ma/a
             fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an
             ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
             view to spite him clue to private and personal grudge.
                                                                                    E
                 We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
             quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
             and with circun1spection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
             thal the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry
             as to be reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
                                                                                    F
             made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
             inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court
             to act according to its whim or caprice. 11

         The present case can be brought under more than one head given
    above without any difficulty.                                                   G
          The above discussion is sufficient to allow this appeal on the facts of
    this case.

          Even though all these facts including the Report of the Ceniral
    Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court,              H
    642                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be
    gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance
    Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental
    proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant.
    We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of
    this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot
B   be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High
    Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27.3.1996
    for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings
    and giving consequential reliefs.

C         Before parting with the case, we cannot but express our anguish
    about the way in which the C.B.I. has conducted itself in this case. From
    the record it is seen that number of adjournments were taken for getting
    instructions to withdraw the prosecution. After taking a number of ad-
    journments, ultimately the Department decided to leave the matter to the
    court's decision.
D
          In this connection, it will be useful to set out a portion from the
    rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant which reads as follows :

                 "It seems, however, that the reluctance of the Regional C.B.I.
             in dropping the proceedings against the petitioner/stumps from the
E            fact that they used lo forge the house valuation report as the sole
             basis for charging the petitioner. The fact that this report is forged
             is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances set out in the
             S.L.P. By this report the house of the petitioner was sought lo be
             valued at Rs. 3 lakhs and odd above the original valuation by the
F            same engineer which was accepted by the Income-tax Department.
             On this basis the petitioner's assets were shown to be Rs. 3 lakhs
             and odd and above as income.

             The petitioner has in fact filed a complaint under Section 340 Cr.
             P.C. for taking cognizance against the officer concerned for using
G            a forged document in charging the petitioner. This complaint of
             the petitioner is pending before the Special Judge (CBI) Patna. It
             is perhaps on account of the fear of being found guilty on forgery
             document that the Regional C.B.l. Officers are reluctant to
             withdraw the charge against the petitioner. That is why after having
H            a short adjournment on 6 occasions from this Court to enable them
                           P.S. RAJYA v. STATE                           643

        to withdraw the proceedings against the petitioner, the C.B.I. has A
        changed its stand and even their Senior Counsel in his place."

      We cannot simply ignore the above extracts from the rejoinder
affidavit in the facts and the circumstances of the case. To put it mildly we
observe that we are not at all happy about the way in which the C.B.I. has
conducted itself in this case. We are sure that the department will not give    B
room for such observations in the future.

R.P.




                                                 I