SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA &ORS.

                        [2012] 5 S.C.R. 1074


A           SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA & ORS.
                                   v.
                  STATE OF KARNATAKA &ORS.
                            IA NO. OF 2012
                                    in
B               (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009)

                            MAY 11, 2012

             [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, AFTAB ALAM AND
                    SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
c
         Mines and Minerals:

        Minerals - Pilferage and illegal mining of - Case
  registered by CBI against erring company - Charge-sheet
0 filed in court - Petition filed before Supreme Court regarding
  illegal mining still going on - Central Empowered Committee
  (CEC) constituted by Supreme Court - CEC submitted reports
  dated 20.4.2012 and 27.4.2012 to Supreme Court pointing
  out large illegalities and irregularities coupled with criminality
E - Held: In the instant case, all the acts and transactions may
  be so inter-connected that they would ultimately form one
  composite transaction making it imperative for the Court to
  direct complete and comprehensive investigation by a single
  investigating agency - Directions given to CBI to investigate
  into the issues specified in CEC Report dated 20.4.2012 -
F Meanwhile proceedings in relation to the items concerned as
  mentioned in the judgment, if pending before any court, to
  remain stayed - Matter adjourned to 3.8.2012 for
  consideration of report dated 27.4.2012 - Environmental law.

G       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

        s. 173(8), 202 and 210 - Held: Further investigation by the
    investigating agency, after presentation of c;i cha/Ian (charge
    sheet in terms of s. 173) is permissible in any case impliedly
H                               1074
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF                   1075
              KARNATAKA &ORS.
but in no event is impermissible - Even assuming that the            A
illegalities, irregularities and offences alleged to have been
committed by the affected parties are the subject matter, even
in their entirety, of previous investigation cases, sub-judice
before various courts including the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court, an investigating agency is empowered to conduct               8
further investigation after institution of a charge-sheet before
the court of competent jurisdiction - A Magistrate is competent
to direct further investigation in terms of s. 173(8) in the case
instituted on a police report - Similarly, the Magistrate has
powers u/s 202 to direct police investigation while keeping the      C
trial pending before him instituted on the basis of a private
complaint in terms of that Section - The provisions of s. 210
use the expression 'shall' requiring the Magistrate to stay the
proceedings of inquiry and trial before him in the event in a
similar subject matter, an investigation is found to be in
progress - All these provisions clearly indicate the legislative     D
scheme under the Cr.P. C. that initiation of an investigation
and filing of a chargesheet do not completely debar further
or wide investigation by the investigating agency or police, or
even by a specialized investigation agency - There does not
seem to be any element of prejudice being caused to the              E
affected parties if the CBI is permitted to investigate the entire
matter - There does not seem to be any prejudice to parties
if further or wider investigation is directed by the Court - The
direction of further investigation is based upon documents and
facts brought to light by the CEC as a result of examination         F
conducted in the course of its primary function relating to
inquiry into environmental violations and illegal mining
activity - The criminal offences are primarily offences against
the State and secondarily against the victim - In the instant
case, if the investigation by specialized agency finds that the      G
suspects have committed offences with or without involvement
of persons in power, still such violation undoubtedly would
have been a great loss to the environmental and natural
resources and would hurt both the State and national economy
                                                                     H
    1076     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A - An ordinary complainant cannot be expected to carry the
    burden of proving such complex offences before the court of
    competent jurisdiction by himself and at his own cost - Doing
    so would be a travesty of the criminal justice system.

         Constitution of India, 1950:
B
          Arts. 32 and 136 read with Art. 21 - Pilferage and illegal
    mining of minerals - Investigation by CBI - Charge-sheet
    submitted before court - Petitions filed before Supreme Court
    regarding illegal mining still continuing - Supreme Court
C   constituting Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to report
    on the matter - Status of CEC - Held: The CEC is not
    discharging quasi-judicial or even administrative functions,
    with a view to determine any rights of the parties - It had made
    different recommendations with regard to prevention and
o   prosecution of environmentally harmful and illegal activities
    carried on in collusion with government officers or otherwise
    - No prejudice has been caused to the intervenor/affected
    parties by non-grant of opportunity of hearing by the CEC -
    In any case, the Court has heard them and is considering the
E   issues independently - As far as the challenge to the
    enlargement of jurisdiction by the CEC beyond the reference
    made by the Court, is concerned, the ambit and scope of
    proceedings before the Court, pending in the writ petition and
    civil appeal, clearly show that the Court is exercising a very
F   wide jurisdiction in the national interest, to ensure that there
    is no further degradation of the environment or damage to the
    forests and the illegal mining and exports are stopped - The
    orders are comprehensive enough not only to give leverage
    to the CEC to examine any ancillary matters, but in fact, place
    an obligation on the CEC to report to the Court without
G   exception and correctly, all matters that can have a bearing
    on the issues involved in all these petitions in both the States
    of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh - The facts of the case
    reveal an unfortunate state of affairs which has prevailed for
    a considerable time in particular districts of both the States
H
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF                   1077
              KARNATAKA &ORS.
of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka - The CEC has                        A
recommended, and the complainant and petitioners have
also highlighted, a complete failure of the State machinery
in relation to controlling and protecting the environment,
forests and minerals from being illegally mined and exploited
- Wherever and whenever the State fails to perform its duties,       B
the Courl shall step in to ensure that Rule of Law prevails over
the abuse of process of law - Such abuse may result from
inaction or even arbitrary action of protecting the true offenders
or failure by different authorities in discharging statutory or
legal obligations in consonance with the procedural and penal        c
statutes - The Courl expressed its concern about the rampant
pilferage and illegal extraction of natural wealth and resources,
parlicular/y, iron ore, as also the environmental degradation
and disaster that may result from unchecked intrusion into the
forest areas.
                                                                     D
     Investigation:

      Duty of State - Opporlunity of hearing - Held: A suspect
has no indefeasible right of being heard prior to initiation of
the investigation, parlicularly, by the investigating agency - E
Even the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure does
not admit of grant of any such opportunity - There is no
provision in the CrPC where an investigating agency must
provide a hearing to the affected parly before registering an
FIR or even before carrying on investigation prior to F
registration of case against the suspect - The CBI may even
conduct pre-registration inquiry for which notice is not
contemplated under the provisions of the Code, the Police
Manual or even as per the precedents laid down by the Court
- It was ever and shall always remain the statutory obligation G
of State to prove offences against the violators of Jaw - If a
private citizen has initiated the proceedings before the
competent court, it will not absolve the State of discharging
its obligation under the provisions of the CrPC and the
obligations of Rule of Law - The Court cannot countenance H
    1078    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A an approach of this kind where the State can be permitted to
  escape its liability only on the ground that multifarious
  complaints or investigations have been initiated by private
  persons or bodies other than the State - In the considered view
  of the Court, it enhances the primary and legal duty of the
B State to ensure proper, fair and unbiased investigation.

         T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.
    2009 (17) SCC 755; Gopal Das Sindhi & Ors. v. State of
    Assam & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 986; Mohd. Yusuf v. Smt. Afaq
                                     =
    Jahan & Anr. 2006 (1 ) SCR 1 AIR 2006 SC 705; and
C   Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad
                                                      =
    Through its Registrar & Ors. 2011 (2) SCR 413 (2011) 3
    SCC 496; Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of
                                                  =
    Investigation & Anr. 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 646 (2001) 7 SCC
    536; Shri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Val/abha Venkata
D   Vishwandha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
                         =
    1999 ( 3 ) SCR 870 JT 1999 (4) SC 537; Sasi Thomas v.
    State & Ors. 2006 (9 ) Suppl. SCR 450     =  (2006) 12 SCC
    421; Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2007 (12)
              =
    SCR 1100 (2008) 2 SCC 409; Nirmal Singh Kah/on v. State
E                                         =
    of Punjab & Ors. 2008 (14) SCR 1049 (2009) 1 SCC 441 ;
    Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2011 (5 ) SCR 729 =
    (2011) 5 SCC 79; Rubabbudin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat
    2010 (1 ) SCR 991   =   (2010) 2 SCC 200; Rama Chaudhary
    v. State of Bihar 2009 (5 ) SCR 482   =  (2009) 6 SCC 346;
F   M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 142 - referred
    to

                         Case Law Reference:
        2009 (17) sec 755          referred to          para 3
G
        1961 AIR 986               referred to          para 17

        2006 (1) SCR 1             referred to         para 17

        2011 (2) SCR 413           referred to          para 17
H       2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 646 referred to             para 18
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                 1079
              KARNATAKA &ORS.

    1999 (3) SCR 870             referred to         para18       A
    2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 450 referred to              para 19

    2007 (12) SCR 1100           referred to         para 19

    2008 (14) SCR 1049           referred to         para 26
                                                                  B
     2011 (5) SCR 729            referred to         para 33

     2010 (1) SCR 991            referred to         para 33

     2009 (5) SCR 482            referred to         para 37
                                                                  c
     2009 (6) sec 142            referred to         para 38

    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A of 2012.
                                IN
    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009.                        D

    Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

     Shyam Divan, (A.C.), A.D.N. Rao (A.C.), Siddharth
Chaudhary (A.C.), Prashant Bhushan, Anitha Shenoy, G.N.
Reddy, Ankur S. Kulkarni, S.N. Terdal, Kiran Suri, Gopal Jain,    E
Rajat Jariwal (for Khaitan & Co.), Dr. Sushil Balwada, Anil
Kumar Mishra-I, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Meera Mathur, AP & J
Chambers, Balaji Srinivasan, Lawyer's Knit & Co., Rajesh
Mahale, Munawwar Naseem, Rakesh K. Sharma, S. Narain &
Co. Bhargava V. Desai, Avijit Bhushan, Aniruddha P. Mayee,        F
E.C. Agrawala, Naveen R. Nath (for Parekh & Co.), Shailesh
Madiyal, Uttara Babbar, Snehasish Mukherjee for the appearing
parties.

    The order of the Court was delivered by
                                                                  G
     SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. By this order we will deal
with and dispose of, the recommendations made by the Central
Empowered Committee (for short, 'CEC') in its report dated
20th April, 2012. Since we have heard the affected parties, the
petitioners and the learned Amicus Curiae, we shall summarize     H
    1080        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 5 S.C.R.

A   the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
    The learned counsel appearing for the affected parties
    contended:

           a.    CEC has submitted its report without providing
                 them an opportunity of being heard ..
B
           h.    CEC has exceeded its jurisdiction and enlarged the
                 scope of the enquiry beyond the reference made
                 by the Court. Thus, the Court should not accept any
                 of the recommendations made by the CEC.
c
           c.    In relation to the alleged irregularities and illegalities
                 pointed out in the report of the CEC, even where
                 criminality is involved or criminal offences are
                 suspected, the matters are sub judice before the
D                Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, this Court
                 should not pass any orders for transferring the
                 investigation of such offences to the Central Bureau
                 of Investigation (for short 'CBI') as it would seriously
                 prejudice their interests.

E         2. In order to deal with these contentions, it is necessary
    for this Court to briefly refer to the background of these cases,
    which has resulted in the filing of the unnumbered IA in Writ
    Petition No. 562/2009 and the peculiar facts and circumstances
    in which the CEC has made its recommendations.
F
       3. Concerned with the rampant pilferage and illegal
  extraction of natural wealth and resources, particularly iron ore,
  and the environmental degradation and disaster that may result
  from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas, this Court felt
G compelled to intervene. Vide its order dated 9th September,
  2002 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.
  [W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995), this Court constituted the CEC to
  examine and monitor the various activities infringing the laws
  protecting the environment and also the preventive or punitive
H steps that may be required to be taken to protect the
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                      1081
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

environment. In addition to this general concern for the               A
environment, the order of this Court dated 9th September,
2002, this Court noted violations of its Orders and directed that
the CEC shall monitor implementation of all orders of the Court
and shall place before it any unresolved cases of non-
compliance, including in respect of the encroachments,                 B
removals, implementations of working plans, compensatory
afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues. In
furtherance to the said order, the Government framed a
notification in terms of Section 33 of the Environment Protection
Act, 1996. The CEC constituted by this Court was proposed              c
to be converted into a Statutory Committee. The draft
notification for the same was also placed before this Court on
9th September, 2002. After approval, the Court directed that a
formal notification will be issued within a week and the functions
and responsibilities given to the CEC were to be exercised by          D
the said Statutory Committee. In fact, this Notification was
issued on 17th September, 2002.

     4. It may be noticed here that, it was in furtherance to the
order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.M No.
467, Home (SCA) Dept. dated 17th November, 2009,                       E
supplemented by Notification No. 228/61/2009-AVD-11 dated
1st December, 2009 issued by the Central Government, that
the CBI was directed to register a case against the
Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC). Earlier the CBI had
registered a case against the OMC on 7th December, 2009                F
and started the probe. This probably came to be stayed by the
High Court vide its order dated 12th December, 2009 which
stay was vacated by another order of that Court on 16th
December, 2010 paving the way for a full-fledged probe. As a
result of vacation of the stay, the CBI continued its investigation.   G

    5. The CBI also filed a charge-sheet in a special court
against the OMC, in an illegal mining case falling within the
State of Karnataka, charging the accused under Sections
1208, 409, 420, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
                                                                       H
    1082     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with the provisions of the Prevention
  of Corruption Act, 1988. The case against the OMC for illegal
  mining was under investigation in respect of the areas of
  Obulapuram and Malangapudi villages of Anantpur district in
  the State of Andhra Pradesh and in the rest of the State of
B Andhra Pradesh.

        6. Further, the State of Andhra Pradesh vide its G.O. Rt.
  No. 723 dated 25th November, 2009, issued by the Industrial
  and Commercial Department, suspended the mining
C operations and also the transportation of mineral material by
  OMC and even other implicated companies, on the basis of
  the findings of a High Level Committee, headed by the Principal
  Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad and the Report of the
  CEC submitted to this Court in I.A. No. 2/2009 in Writ Petition
  (Civil) No. 201 of 200~. a copy of which was forwarded to the
D State Government. This was challenged before the High Court
  of Andhra Pradesh which, vide judgment dated 26th February,
  2010, set aside the notification and allowed the writ petitions,
  while holding that the G.O. issued by the Government suffered
  from a jurisdictional error and was in violation of the principles
E of natural justice. Against the said judgment of the High Court,
  the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed a Special Leave
  Petition, SLP{C) No. 7366-7367 of 2010 on different grounds.

        7. Samaj Parivartan Samuday, a registered society, filed
F petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stating that
  the illegal mining in the States of Andhra Pradesh and
  Karnataka was still going on in full swing. Such illegal mining
  and transportation of illegally mined minerals were being done
  in connivance with the officials, politicians and even Ministers
G of State. There was a complete lack of action on the part of
  the Ministry of Environment and Forests on the one hand and
  the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, on the other. It
  was averred that there was complete breakdown of the official
  machinery, thereby allowing such blatant illegalities to take
H place. This inaction and callousness on the part of the Central
    SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                     1083
    KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

  and the State Governments and failure on their part to control       A
  the illegal mining has allowed large-scale destruction, both of
  forest and non-forest lands and has adversely affected the
  livelihood of the people. It thus, has filed WP (C) 562 of 2009
  and has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any
  other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respective State   B
  Governments and to the Union of India, to stop all mining and
  related activities in the forest areas of these two States. It
  further sought that the orders passed by this Court in the
. W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 be carried out and the provisions of
  the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 be implemented. It also            c
  prayed for cancelling of the 'raising contracts' or sub-lease
  executed by the Government of Karnataka in favour of the
  various private individuals and allowing back-door entry into the
  mining activity in those areas. The most significant prayer in
  this petition was that after stopping of the mining activity, a
                                                                       0
  systematic survey of both the inter-state border between the
  States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and mine lease areas
  along the border be conducted and proper Relief and
  Rehabilitation Programmes (for short 'RR Programmes') be
  implemented.
                                                                       E
        8. All the above cases, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995, 562/
  2009 and SLP(C) No. 7366-7367/2010, relate to protection of
  environment, forest areas, stoppage of illegal mining and
  cancellation of illegal sub-leasing and contracts executed by any
  State Government in favour of the third parties, to the extent       F
  such contracts are invalid and improper. The latter cases, Writ
  Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 and SLP(C) Nos. 7366-7367
  of 201 Oconcern the Bellary Forest Reserve. Further, there were
_ serious allegations raised in these petitions as to how and the
  manner in which the leases were executed and mining permits          G
 were granted or renewed for carrying out the mining activities
  stated in the petition.              ·

      9. The CEC was required to submit quarterly reports, which
 it has been submitting and with the passage of time, large            H
    1084     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A irregularities and illegalities coupled with criminality were
  brought to the notice of this Court. The CEC, in discharge of
  its functions and responsibilities, was examining the matters,
  in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. These
  violations have come to the surface as a result of enquiries
B conducted by the CEC, regarding illegal mining and mining
  beyond their leased areas by these companies. It was pointed
  by the CEC with specific reference to these companies that
  there was not only illegal extraction of iron ore but the minerals
  was being also extracted beyond the leased area specified in
C the lease deeds. Further, there was unchecked export of iron
  ore from the border areas of the two States, Andhra Pradesh
  and Karnataka. This related to the quantum, quality and
  transportation of ore as well.

       10. While passing an order of complete ban on mining
D activity in these areas vide order dated 29th July, 2011 this
  Court sought submissions on the market requirement for mined
  ore and vide order dated 5th August, 2011 permitted only M/s.
   National Minerals Development Corporation Ltd. (for short
  "NMDC") to carry out very limited mining activity, so that the
E economic interest of the country and of the states does not
  suffer irretrievably. This Court has also directed the CEC to
  examine all aspects of the mining activity and report on various
  measures that are required to be taken for RR Programmes.
  Limited mining activity, thus, was permitted to be carried on in
F the area with the clear direction that the RR Programmes shall
  be simultaneously commenced arid it is only after such RR
  Programmes are satisfactorily put into motion and the CEC
  makes a suggestion in this regard, that the mining activity would
  be permitted. Vide order dated 23rd September, 2011, this
G Court accepted various recommendations of the CEC and
  noticed that prima facie it appears that at the relevant time,
  there existed linkage between the alleged illegal mining in the
  Bellary Reserve Forest, falling in the District Anantpur in Andhra
  Pradesh and the illegalities in respect of grant/renewal of
H mining leases and deviations from sanctioned mine sketch in
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                     1085
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

the Bellary District in Karnataka. The Court also noted that          A
illegally extracted iron ore belonging to one M/s. Associated
Mining Company (for short "AMC") was apparently routed
through the nearest Port in Vishakhapatnam, through district
Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the Court felt that the CBI
should examine the alleged illegalities. Vide the same order,         B
this Court required the CBI to additiona!ly present a status report
of investigations which the CBI had undertaken in respect of
OMC in Andhra Pradesh under FIR No. 17A/2009-
CBl(Hyderabad). It was also reported that there was massive
illegal mining by third parties in the mining lease No. 1111 of       c
one M/s. National Minerals Development Corporation (NMDC).
It was suspected that one Mis. Deccan Mining Syndicate (for
short "OMS") was involved in such activities and no action had
been taken on the complaints of NMDC. Some other directions
were also issued including directions for further inquiry by the      0
CEC and the CEC was required to put up a comprehensive
report before this Court.

      11. In the meanwhile, an application was filed by the
petitioners of writ petition No.562 of 2009 which remained un-
numbered. The prayer in this application was to extend the            E
scope of investigation by the CBI relating to illegal mining and
other allied activities which the politicians and major corporate
groups including M/s. Jindal Group and M/s. Adanis were
indulging in, within the State of Karnataka. They also prayed
that both the States should also be directed demarcate the            F
inter-state boundaries, particularly, in the mining area.

     12. After examining the issues raised in the IA, the earlier
orders of this Court and based on the meetings held by the
CEC on 20th March, 2012 and 11th April, 2012, respectively,           G
the CEC identified the issues as follows:-

      i)    The alleged serious illegalities/ irregularities and
            undue favour in respect of (a) the land purchased
            by the close relatives of the then Chief Minister,
            Karnataka for 0.40 crore in the year 2006 and             H
    1086          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A                  subsequently sold to M/s South West Mining
                   Limited in the year 2010 for Rs.20.00 crores and
                   (b) donation of Rs.20.00 crore received by Prerna
                   Education Society from M/s South West Mining
                   Limited.
B
           ii)     the alleged illegal export of iron ore from Belekeri
                   Port and associated issues;

           iii)    alleged export from Krishapatr1afl) and Chennai
                   Port after exports were banned by the State of
c                  Karnataka; and

           iv)     transfer of senior police officers on deputation to
                   Lokayukta, Karnataka."

      13. The CEC filed two comprehensive reports before this
D Court, one dated 20th April, 2012 and other dated 27th April,
  2012, both in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 .

      . 14. Out of the above issues indicated, the CEC dealt with
  issue No. 1 in the Report dated 20th April, 2012, while issue
E Nos. 2 to 4 were dealt with in the Report dated 27th April,
  2012. On issue No. 1, after summarizing the facts and its
  observations during its enquiry, the CEC pointed out illegalities,
  irregularities and instances of misuse of public office committed
  for the benefit of the close relatives of the then Chief Minister,
F State of Karnataka. It made the following recommendations :-

        "15. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances
        the CEC is of the considered view that the purchase of the
        above said land notified for acquisition for public purpose,
        its de-notification from acquisition, permission granted for
G       conversion from agriculture to non-agricultural (residential)
        purpose and subsequent sale to M/s South West Mining
        Limited prima facie involves serious violations of the
        relevant Acts and procedural lapses and prima facie
        misuse of office by the then Chief Minister, Karnataka
H       thereby enabling his close relatives to make windfall profits
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF                      1087
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

  and raises grave issues relating to undue favour, ethics           A
  and morality. Considering the above and taking into
  consideration the massive illegalities and illegal mining
  which have been found to have taken place in Karnataka
  and the allegations made against the Jindal Group as
  being receipient of large quantities of illegally mined            B
  material and undue favour being shown to them in respect
  of the mining lease of M/s MML it is RECOMMENDED
  that a detailed investigation may be directed to be carried
  out in the matter by an independent investigating agency
  such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and to           c
  take follow up action. This agency may be asked to delve
  into the matter in depth and in a time bound manner. This
  agency may also be directed to investigate into other
' similar cases, if any, of lands de-notified from acquisition
  by the Bangalore Development Authority and the illegalities
                                                                     0
  I irregularities I procedural lapses, if any, and to take follow
  up action.

 16. The Prerna Education Society set up by the close
 relatives of the then Chief Minister, Karnataka has during
 March, 2010 vide two cheques of Rs.5.0 crores each                  E
 received a donation of Rs.10 crores from M/s South West
 Mining Limited, a Jindal Group Company. In this context,
 it is of interest to note that during the year 2009-2010 the
 net profit (after tax) of the said Company was only Rs.5,73
 crores. Looking into the details of the other donations             F
 made by the said Company or by the other Jindal Group
 Companies to any other Trust I Society not owned,
 managed or controlled by the Jindal Group. After
 considering that a number of allegations, with supporting
 documents, have been made in the Report dated 27th July,            G
 2011 of Karnataka Lokayukta regarding the M/s. JSW
 Steel Limited having received large quantities of illegal
 mineral and alleged undue favour shown to it in respect of
 the extraction I supply of iron ore by I to it from the mining
 lease of M/s MML, it is RECOMMENDED that this Hon'ble               H
    1088    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A       Court may consider directing the investigating agency such
        as CBI to also look into the linkages, if any, between the
        above said donation of Rs.10 crores made by M/s South
        West Mining Limited and the alleged receipt of illegal
        mineral by M/s JSW Steel Limited and the alleged undue
B       favour shown to it in respect of the mining lease of M/s
        MML.

        17. The CEC has filed its Report dated 28th March, 2012
        wherein the representation filed by the petitioner against
        Mr. R. Parveen Chandra (ML 2661) has been dealt with
c       (refer para 6(ii), page 11-13 of the CEC Report dated 28th
        March, 2012). In the said representation it has been
        alleged that Mr. Parveen Chandra the lessee of ML
        No.2661 has made two payments, one of Rs.2.50 crores
        to Mis Bhagat Homes Private Limited an~ the other of
D       Rs.3.5 crores to M/s Dhavalagir Property Developers
        Private Limited as a quid pro quo for allotment of the said
       .mining lease. It is RECOMMENDED that this Hon'ble
        Court may consider directing the investigating agency such
        as CBI to investigate the payments made by the above
E       said lessee to these two companies whose Directions I
        shareholders are the close relatives of the then Chief
        Minister, Karnataka and whether there was any link
        between such payments and grant of mining lease to Mr.
        Parveen Chandra."
F
        15. When we heard the parties to the lis and even
  permitted the affected parties as interveners, the hearing had
  been restricted to the Report of the CEC dated 20th April,
  2012. Therefore, presently, we are passing directions only in
G relation to that Report, while postponing the hearing of the
  second Report which is dated 27th April, 2012.

       16. In the backdrop of the above events of the case,
  reference to certain relevant provisions of the Criminal
  Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) can now be appropriately
H made, before we proceed to deal with the above noticed
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                       1089
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

contentions.                                                            A

      17. The machinery of criminal investigation is set into
motion by the registration of a First Information Report (FIR),
by the specified police officer of a jurisdictional police station
or otherwise. The CBI, in terms of its manual has adopted a             B
procedure of conducting limited pre-investigation inquiry as
well. In both the cases, the registration of the FIR is essential.
A police investigation may start with the registration of the FIR
while in other cases (CBI, etc.), an inquiry may lead to the
registration of an FIR and thereafter regular investigation may         C
begin in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC. Section
154 of the CrPC places an obligation upon the authorities to
register the FIR of the information received, relating to
commission of a cognizable offence, whether such information
is received orally or in writing by the officer in-charge of a police
station. A police officer is authorised to investigate such cases       D
without order of a Magistrate, though, in terms of Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may
direct the registration of a case and order the police authorities
to conduct investigation, in accordance with the provisions of
the CrPC. Such an order of the Magistrate under Section                 E
156(3) CrPC is in the nature of a pre-emptory reminder or
intimation to police, to exercise their plenary power of
investigation under that Section. This would result in a police
report under Section 173, whereafter the Magistrate may or
may not take cognizance of the offence and proceed under                F
Chapter XVI CrPC. The Magistrate has judicial discretion,
upon receipt of a complaint to take cognizance directly under
Section 200 CrPC, or to adopt the above procedure. [Ref.
Gopa/ Oas Sindhi & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. [AIR 1961
SC 986]; Mohd. Yusuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. (AIR 2006                G
SC 705]; and Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of
Allahabad Through its Registrar & Ors. [(2011) 3 SCC 496].

     18. Once the investigation is conducted in accordance with
the provisions of the CrPC, a police officer is bound to file a         H
    1090     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A report before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as
  contemplated under Section 173 CrPC, upon which the
  Magistrate can proceed to try the offence, if the same were
  triable by such Court or commit the case to the Court of
  Sessions. It is significant to note that the provisions of Section
B 173(8) CrPC open with non-obstante language that nothing in
  the provisions of Section 173(1) to 173(7) shall be deemed to
  preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a
  report under sub-Section (2) has been forwarded to the
  Magistrate. Thus, under Section 173(8), where charge-sheet
c has been filed, that Court also enjoys the jurisdiction to direct
  further investigation into the offence. {Ref., Hemant Dhasmana
  v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 536]}.
  This power cannot have any inhibition including such
  requirement as being obliged to hear the accused before any
  such direction is made. It has been held in Shri Bhagwan
0
    Samardha Sreepada Val/abha Venkata Vishwandha Maharaj
    v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [JT 1999 (4) SC 537) that
    the casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result
    in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all
E   potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being
    heard.

       19. While the trial Court does not have inherent powers like
  those of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC or the
  Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
F such that it may order for complete reinvestigation or fresh
  investigation of a case before it, however, it has substantial
  powers in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Sections
  311 and 391 of CrPC. In cases where cognizance has been
  taken and where a substantial portion of investigation/trial have
G already been completed and where a direction for further
  examination would have the effect of delaying the trial, if the trial
  court is of the opinion that the case has been made out for
  alteration of charge etc., it may exercise such powers without
  directing further investigation. {Ref. Sasi Thomas v. State &
H Ors. [(2006) 12 sec 421]}. Still in another case, taking the aid
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                      1091
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

of the doctrine of implied power, this Court has also stated that      A
an express grant of statutory power carries with it, by necessary
implication, the authority to use all reasonable means to make
such statutory power effective. Therefore, absence of statutory
provision empowering Magistrate to direct registration of ari
FIR would not be of any consequence and the Magistrate would           B
nevertheless be competent to direct registration of an FIR. {Ref.
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC
409]}.

     20. Thus, the CrPC leaves clear scope for conducting of
further inquiry and filing of a supplementary charge sheet, if         C
necessary, with such additional facts and evidence as may be
collected by the investigating officer in terms of sub-Sections
(2) to (6) of Section 173 CrPC to the Court.

     21. To put it aptly, further investigation by the investigating   D
agency, after presentation of a challan (charge sheet in terms
of Section 173 CrPC) is permissible in any case impliedly but
in no event is impermissible.

     22. A person who complains of commission of a                     E
cognizable offence has been provided with two options under
Indian Criminal jurisprudence. Firstly, he can lodge the police
report which would be proceeded upon as afore-noticed and
secondly, he could file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC,
whereupon the Magistrate shall follow the procedure provided
under Sections 200 to 203 or 204 to 210 under Chapter XV
                                                                       F
and XVI of the CrPC.

     23. In the former case, it is upon the police report that the
entire investigation is conducted by the investigating agency
and the onus to establish commission of the alleged offence            G
beyond reasonable doubt is entirely on the prosecution. In a
complaint case, the complainant is burdened with the onus of
establishing the offence and he has to lead evidence before
the Court to establish the guilt of the accused. The rule of
establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt is                    H
    1092     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   applicable to a complaint case as well.

        24. The important feature that we must notice for the
  purpose of the present case is that even on a complaint case,
  in terms of Section 202, the Magistrate can refer the complaint
  to investigation by the police and call for the report first,
8
  deferring the hearing of the complaint till then. Section 210
  CrPC is another significant provision with regard to the powers
  of the Court where investigation on the same subject matter is
  pending. It provides that in a complaint case where any enquiry
  or trial is pending before the Court and in relation to same
C offence and investigation by the Police is in progress which is
  the subject matter of the enquiry or trial before the Court, the
  Magistrate shall stay the proceedings and await the report of
  the investigating agency. Upon presentation of the report, both
  the cases on a Police report and case instituted on a complaint
D shall be tried as if both were instituted on a Police report and
  if the report relates to none of the accused in the complaint it
  shall proceed with the enquiry/trial which had been stayed by
  it. The section proceeds on the basis that a complaint case and
  case instituted on a police report for the commission of the
E same offence can proceed simultaneously and the Court would
  await the Police report before it proceeds with the complaint
  in such cases. The purpose again is to try these cases together,
  if they are in relation to the same offence with the intent to
  provide a fair and effective trial. The powers of the trial court
F are very wide and the legislative intent of providing a fair trial
  and presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is the
  essence of the criminal justice system.

       25. The Court is vested with very wide powers in order to
G equip it adequately to be able to do complete justice. Where
  the investigating agency has submitted the charge sheet before
  the court of competent jurisdiction, but it has failed to bring all
  the culprits to book, the Court is empowered under Section 319
  Cr.P.C. to proceed against other persons who are not arrayed
  as accused in the chargesheet itself. The Court can summon
H
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF                1093
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

such suspected persons and try them as accused in the case,      A
provided the Court is satisfied of involvement of such persons
in commission of the crime from the record and evidence
before it.

      26. We have referred to these provisions and the scope B
 of the power of the criminal court, in view of the argument
 extended that there are certain complaints filed by private
 persons or that the matters are pending before the court and
 resultantly this Court would be not competent in law to direct
 the CBI to conduct investigation of those aspects. We may C
 notice that the investigation of a case or filing chargesheet in
 a case does not by itself bring the absolute end to exercise of
 power by the investigating agency or by the Court. Sometimes
 and particularly in the matters of the present kind, the
 investigating agency has to keep its options open to continue
with the investigation, as certain other relevant facts, D
 incriminating materials and even persons, other than the
 persons stated in the FIR as accused, might be involved in the
commission of the crime. The basic purpose of an investigation
 is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper
investigation, in accordance with law and ensure that the guilty E
are punished. At this stage, we may appropriately refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Nirma/ Singh Kah/on v.
State of Punjab & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 441] wherein an
investigation was being conducted into wrongful appointments
to Panchayat and other posts by the Police Department of the F
State. However, later on, these were converted into a public
interest litigation regarding larger corruption charges. The
matter was sought to be referred for investigation to a
specialised agency like CBI. The plea taken was that the
Special Judge was already seized of the case as charge sheet G
had been filed before that Court, and the question of referring
the matter for investigation did not arise. The High Court in
directing investigation by the CBI had exceeded its jurisdiction
and assumed the jurisdiction of the Special Judge. The plea
of prejudice was also raised. While rejecting these arguments, H
    1094     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   the appeals were dismissed and this Court issued a direction
    to the CBI to investigate and file the charge sheet before the
    Court having appropriate jurisdiction over the investigation. The
    reasoning of the Court can be examined from paragraph 63 to
    65 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
B
         "63. The High Court in this case was not monitoring any
         investigation. It only desired that the investigation should
         be carried out by an independent agency. Its anxiety, as
         is evident from the order dated 3-4-2002, was to see that
         the officers of the State do not get away. If that be so, the
c        submission of Mr Rao that the monitoring of an
         investigation comes to an end after the charge-sheet is
         filed, as has been held by this Court in Vineet Narain and
         M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India, loses
         all significance.                                           -
D
         64. Moreover, it was not a case where the High Court had
         assumed a jurisdiction in regard to the same offence in
         respect whereof the Special Judge had taken cognizance
         pursuant to the charge-sheet filed. The charge-sheet was
E        not filed in the FIR which was lodged on the intervention
         of the High Court.

         65. As the offences were distinct and different, the High
         Court never assumed the jurisdiction of the Special Judge
         to direct reinvestigation as was urged or otherwise."
F
         27. Now, we shall proceed to examine the merit of the
    contentions raised before us. We may deal with the
    submissions (a) and (b), together, as they are intrinsi9ally inter-
    related.
G
        28. The CEC had submitted the Report dated 20th April,
  2012 and it has been stated in the Report that opportunity of
  being heard had been granted to the affected parties. However,
  the contention before us is that while the CEC heard other
H parties, it had not heard various companies like M/s. South West
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF                     1095
   KARNATAKA &OIZS. [S'IVATANTER KL.::JIAR, J.]

Mining Ltd. and Mis. JSW Steel Ltd. Firstly, the CEC is not            A
vested with any investigative powers under the orders of this
Court, or under the relevant notifications, in the manner as
understood under the CrPC. The CEC is not conducting a
regular inquiry or investigation with the object of filing
chargesheet as contemplated under Section 173 CrPC. Their              B
primary function and responsibility is to report to the Court on
various matters relating to collusion in illegal and irregular
activities that are being carried on by various persons affecting
the ecology, environment and reserved forests of the relevant
areas. While submitting such reports in accordance with the            c
directions of this Court, the CEC is required to collect such facts.
In other words, it has acted like a fact finding inquiry. The CEC
is not discharging quasi-judicial or even administrative
functions, with a view to determine any rights of the parties. It
was not expected of the CEC to give notice to the companies
                                                                       0
involved in such illegalities or irregularities, as it was not
determining any of their rights. It was simpliciter reporting
matters to the Court as per the ground realities primarily with
regard to environment and illegal mining for appropriate
directions. It had made different recommendations with regard
to prevention and prosecution of environmentally harmful and           E
illegal activities carried on in collusion with government officers
or otherwise. We are of the considered view that no prejudice
has been caused to the intervenor/affected parties by non-grant
of opportunity of hearing by the CEC. In any case, this Court
has heard them and is considering th~ issues independently.            F

     29. As far as the challenge to the enlargement of
jurisdiction by the CEC beyond the reference made by the
Court, is concerned, the said contention is again without any
substance. We have referred to the various orders of this Court.       G
The ambit and scope of proceedings before this Court, pending
in the above writ petition and civil appeal, clearly show that the
Court is exercising a very wide jurisdiction in the national
interest, to ensure that there is no further degradation of the
environment or damage to the forests and so that illegal mining        H
    1096     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A and exports are stopped. The orders are comprehensive
  enough to not only give leverage to the CEC to examine any
  ancillary matters, but in fact, place an obligation on the CEC
  to report to this Court without exception and correctly, all
  matters that can have a bearing on the issues involved in all
B these petitions in both the States of Karnataka and Andhra
  Pradesh. Thus, we reject this contention also.

       30. Contention (c) is advanced on the premise that all
  matters stated by the CEC are sub-judice before one or the
  other competent Court or investigating agency and, thus, this
C Court has no jurisdiction to direct investigation by the CBI. In
  any case, it is argued that such directions would cause them
  serious prejudice.

       31. This argument is misplaced in law and is misconceived
D on facts. Firstly, all the facts that had been brought on record
  by the CEC are not directly sub-judice, in their entirety, before
  a competent forum or investigating agency.

        32. In relation to issue 1(a) raised by the CEC which also
  but partially is the subject matter of PCR No. 2 of 2011 pending
E before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore
  under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court took
  cognizance and summoned the accused to face the trial, writ
  against the same is pending in the High Court. It primarily
  relates to the improper de-notification of the land, which had
F been under acquisition but possession whereof was not taken.
  This land was purchased by the family members of the then
  Chief Minister for a consideration of Rs.40 lacs and was sold
  after de-notification for a sum of Rs.20 crores to South West
  Mining Ltd. after de-notification. For this purpose, office of the
G Chief Minister and other higher Government Officials were
  used. While the earlier part of above-noted violations is covered
  under PCR No. 2 of 2011, the transactions of purchase sale
  and other attendant circumstances are beyond the scope of the
  said pending case which refers only to the decision of"de-
H notification. It appears that the entire gamut or the complete
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                       1097
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
facts stated by the CEC and supported by documents are not              A
the matter sub-judice before the Trial Court. Similarly, issue 1
(b) relates to the donation of Rs.20 crores received by Prerna
Education Society from M/s. South West Mining Ltd. The
society is stated to be belonging to the members of the family
of the Chief Minister Shri Yeddyurappa. The written                     B
submissions filed on behalf of M/s. South West Mining Ltd., do
not reflect that issue 1(a) and (b) of the CEC report under
consideration are directly and in their entirety are the subject
matter of any investigations in progress and proceedings
pending before any competent forum. These are merely                    c
informatory facts, supported by relevant and authentic
documents, highlighted by the CEC in its report for
consideration of the Court. A suspect has no indefeasible right
of being heard prior to initiation of the investigation, particularly
by the investigating agency. Even, in fact, the scheme of the           0
Code of Criminal Procedure does not admit of grant of any
such opportunity. There is no provision in the CrPC where an
investigating agency must provide a hearing to the affected
party before registering an FIR or even before carrying on
investigation prior to registration of case against the suspect.
                                                                        E
The CBI, as already noticed, may even conduct pre-registration
inquiry for which notice is not contemplated under the
provisions of the Code, the Police Manual or even as per the
precedents laid down by this Court. It is only in those cases
where the Court directs initiation of investigation by a
specialized agency or transfer investigation to such agency             F
from another agency that the Court may, in its discretion, grant
hearing to the suspect or affected parties. However, that also
is not an absolute rule of law and is primarily a matter in the
judicial discretion of the Court. This question is of no relevance
to the present case as we have already heard the interveners.           G

     33. In the case of Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
[(2011) 5 SCC 79), this Court was concerned with a case where
the State Government had objected to the transfer of
investigation to CBI of the case of a murder of a witness to a          H
    1098         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A fake encounter. The CBI had already investigated the case of
  fake encounter and submitted a charge sheet against high
  police officials. This Court analyzed the entire law on the subject
  and cited with approval the judgment of the Court in the case
  of Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat ((2010) 2 SCC
B 200). In that case, the Court had declared the law that in
  appropriate cases, the Court is empowered to hand over
  investigation to an independent agency like CBI even when the
  charge-sheet had been submitted. In the case of Narmada Bai,
  the Court had observed that there was a situation which upon
c analysis of the allegations it appeared that abduction of
  Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi thei their subsequent murder as well
  as the murder of the witnesses are one series of facts and was
  connected together as to form the same transaction under
  Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was
0 considered appropriate to transfer the investigation of the
  subsequent case also to CBI.

       34. If we analyse the abovestated principles of law and
  apply the same to the facts of the present case, then the Court
  cannot rule out the possibility that all these acts and transactions
E may be so inter-connected that they would ultimately form one
  composite transaction making it imperative for the Court to
  direct complete and comprehensive investigation by a single
  investigating agency. The need to so direct is, inter alia, for the
  following considerations:
F
           (a)    The report of the CEC has brought new facts,
                  subsequent events and unquestionable documents
                  on record to substantiate its recommendations.

           (b)    The subsequent facts, inquiry and resultant
G                 suspicion, therefore, are the circumstances for
                  directing further and specialized investigation.

           (c)    The scope and ambit of present investigation is
                  much wider than the investigations/proceedings
H
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                      1099
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

            pending before the CourUinvestigating agencies.            A

      (d)   Various acts and transactions prima facie appear
            to be part of a same comprehensive transaction.

      (e)   The requirement of just, fair and proper investigation
            would demand investigation by a specialized                8
            agency keeping in view the dimensions of the
            transactions, the extent of money involved and
            manipulations alleged.

     35. To give an example to emphasize that this is a case           c
requiring further investigation and is fit to be transferred to the
specialized investigating agency, we may mention that the
South West Mining Ltd. was initially found to be a front
company of JSW Steels Ltd. Thereafter all transactions were
examined and the improper purchase of land and donations
                                                                       0
made by them came to light. These facts appear to be
inherently interlinked. Despite that and intentionally, we are not
dealing with the factual matrix of the case or the documents on
record, in any detail or even discussing the merits of the case
in relation to the controversies raised before us so as to avoid
                                                                       E
any prejudice to the rights of the affected parties before the
courts in various proceedings and investigation including the
proposed investigation.

     36. Now, we shall proceed on the assumption that the
illegalities, irregularities and offences alleged to have been         F
committed by the affected parties are the subject matter, even
in their entirety, of previous investigation cases, sub-judice
before various Courts including the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court. It is a settled position of law that an investigating agency
is empowered to conduct further investigation after institution        G
of a charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
A magistrate is competent to direct further investigation in te11TIS
of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the case instituted on a police
report. Similarly, the Magistrate has powers under Section 202
 Cr.P.C. to direct police investigation while keeping the trial
                                                                       H
    1100     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A pending before him instituted on the basis of a private·
  complaint in terms of that Section. The provisions of Section
  21 O Cr.P.C. use the expression 'shall' requiring the Magistrate
  to stay the proceedings of inquiry and trial before him in the
  event in a similar subject matter, an investigation is found to
B be in progress. All these provisions clearly indicate the
  legislative scheme under the Cr.P.C. that initiation of an
  investigation and filing of a chargesheet do not completely
  debar further or wider investigation by the investigating agency
  or police, or even by a specialized investigation agency.
C Significantly, it requires to be noticed that when the court is to
  ensure fair and proper investigation in an adversarial system
  of criminal administration, the jurisdiction of the Court is of a
  much higher degree than it is in an inquisitorial system. It is
  clearly contemplated under the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence
  that an investigation should be fair, in accordance with law and
0
  should not be tainted. But, at the same time, the Court has to
  take precaution that interested or influential persons are not
  able to misdirect or hijack the investigation so as to throttle a
  fair investigation resulting in the offenders escaping the punitive
  course of law. It is the inherent duty of the Court and any lapse
E in this regard would tantamount to error of jurisdiction.

       37. In the case of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar
  [(2009) 6 sec 346], this Court was considering the scope of
  Sections 173(8), 173(2) and 319 of the CrPC in relation to
F directing further investigation. The accused raised a contention
  that in that case, report had been filed, charges had been
  framed and nearly 21 witnesses had been examined and at that
  stage, in furtherance to investigation taken thereafter, if a
  supplementary charge-sheet is filed and witnesses are
G permitted to be summoned, it will cause serious prejudice to
  the rights of the accused. It was contended that the Court has
  no jurisdiction to do so. The Trial Court permitted summoning
  and examination of the summoned witnesses in furtherance to
  the supplementary report. The order of the Trial Court was
H upheld by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                     1101
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

petition, a Bench of this Court observed :                            A
    "14. Sub-section (1) of Section 173 CrPC makes it clear
    that every investigation shall be completed without
    unnecessary delay. Sub-section (2) mandates that as soon
    as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of
                                                                      8
    the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered
    to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a
    report in the form prescribed by the State Government
    mentioning the name of the parties, nature of information,
    name of the persons who appear to be acquainted with
    the circumstances of the case and further particulars such        C
    as the name of the offences that have been committed,
    arrest of the accused and details about his release with
    or without sureties.
    15. Among the other sub-sections, we are very much                o
    concerned about sub-section (8) of Section 173 which
    reads as under:
      "173. (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
            preclude further investigation in respect of an
            offence after a report under sub-section (2) has          E
            been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon
            such investigation, the officer in charge of the police
            station obtains further evidence, oral or
            documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
            further report or reports regarding such evidence in      F
            the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-
            sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in
            relation to such report or reports as they apply in
            relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."
    A mere reading of the above provision makes it clear that         G
    irrespective of the report under sub-section (2) forwarded
    to the Magistrate, if the officer in charge of the police
    station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent on his part
    to forward the same to the Magistrate with a further report
    with regard to such evidence in the form prescribed. The          H
    1102     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A       abovesaid provision also makes it clear that further
        investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is
        prohibited.

        16. The law does not mandate taking of prior permission
        from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out
B
        a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet
        is a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation without
        prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further
        investigation is permissible.

c       18. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that
        on completion of further investigation, the investigating
        agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report
        and not a fresh report regarding the "further" evidence
        obtained during such investigation.
D       19. As observed in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State
        of Gujarat the prime consideration for further investigation
        is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice.
        The hands of the investigating agency for further
        investigation should not be tied down on the ground of
E       mere delay. In other words

               "[t]he mere fact that there may be further delay in
               concluding the trial should not stand in the way of
               further investigation if that would help the court in
               arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as
F
               well as effective justice."

       38. Reference can also be made to the judgment of this
  Court in the case of National Human Rights Commission v.
  State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 342], wherein the Court
G was dealing with different cases pending in relat[on to the
  communal riots in the State of Gujarat and the trial in one of
  the cases was at the concluding stage. In the meanwhile, in
  another FIR filed in relation to a similar occurrence, further
  investigation was being conducted and was bound to have a
H bearing even on the pending cases. The Court, while permitting
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF                     1103
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

inquiry/investigation, including further investigation, completed     A
stayed the proceedings in the Trial Court as well and held as
under:

    "10. We make it clear that SIT shall be free to work out
    the modalities and the norms required to be followed for
    the purpose of inquiry/investigation including further            B
    investigation. Needless to say the sole object of the
    criminal justice system is to ensure that a person who is
    guilty of an offence is punished.

    11. M( K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel had submitted         c
    that in some cases the alleged victims themselves say that
    wrong persons have been included by the police officials
    as accused and the real culprits are sheltered. He,
    therefore, suggested that trial should go on,
    notwithstanding the inquiry/ investigation including further      0
    investigation as directed by us. We find that the course
    would not be appropriate because if the trial continues and
    fresh evidence/materials surface, it would require almost
    a de novo trial which would be not desirable."
     39. We do not find any necessity to multiply the precedents      E
on this issue. It is a settled principle of law that the object of
every investigation is to arrive at the truth by conducting a fair,
unbiased and proper investigation.

     40. Referring to the plea of prejudice taken up by the
                                                                      F
affected parties before us, we are unable to see ariy element
of prejudice being caused to the affected parties if the CBI is
permitted to investigate the entire matter. The plea taken by the
interveners before us is that M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. is a bona
fide purchaser of iron ore from the open market and they have         G
been affected by the unilateral actions of one M/s. Mysore
Minerals Ltd. They state that they have no statutory liability to
check origin of iron ore or to maintain Form 27. According to
M/s. JSW Steels Ltd., they are already co-operating with the
CBI in the investigation directed by the Supreme Court. As far
as Mis. South West Mining Ltd. is concerned, it has stated that       H
    1104     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A it is the purchaser of the land for bona fide consideration and
  genuine purpose. The land has been converted to commercial
  use and that is why Rs.20 crores werepaid as consideration.
  They further claimed that they had Rs.23.96 crores of pre-tax
  profit and, therefore, they were in a position to make the
B donation which they had made. Not only they, but other
  companies affiliated to Jindal Group have also made similar
  contributions. It is not for us to examine whether the stand taken
  by the intervener companies is correct or not. It requires to be
  investigated and an investigation per se would help them to
C clear their position, rather than subjecting them to face
  multifarious litigations, investigations and economic burden.
  Having heard them, we are unable to find any prejudice to
  parties if further or wider investigation is directed by this Court.
  The direction of further investigation is based upon documents
  and facts brought to light by the CEC as a result of examination
0
  conducted in the course of its primary function relating to inquiry
  into environmental violations and illegal mining activity. If the
  proceedings are permitted to continue and finally investigations
  reveal that a case which requires to be tried in accordance with
  law exists, then the interveners would have to face proceedings
E all over again. So, it is in their own interest that the specialized
  agency is permitted to investigate and bring out the true facts
  before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
        41. We must notice that the criminal offences are primarily
F offences against the State and secondarily against the victim.
  In this case, if the investigation by specialized agency finds that
  the suspect persons have committed offences with or without
  involvement of persons in power, still such violation undoubtedly
  would have been a great loss to the environmental and natural
G resources and would hurt both the State and national economy.
  We cannot expect an ordinary complainant to carry the burden
  of proving such complex offences before the Court of
  competent jurisdiction by himself and at his own cost. Doing
  so would be a travesty of the criminal justice system.
   SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF                      1105
   KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     42. It was ever and shall always remain the statutory the          A
obligation of the State to prove offences against the violators
of law. If a private citizen has initiated the proceedings before
the competent court, it will not absolve the State of discharging
its obligation under the provisions of the CrPC and the
obligations of Rule of Law. The Court cannot countenance an             B
approach of this kind where the State can be permitted to
escape its liability only on the ground that multifarious
complaints or investigations have been initiated by private
persons or bodies other than the State. In our considered view,
it enhances the primary and legal duty of the State to ensure           c
proper, fair and unbiased investigation.

     43. The facts of the present case reveal an unfortunate state
of affairs which has prevailed for a considerable time in the
mentioned districts of both the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka. The CEC has recommended, and the complainant                 D
and petitioners have also highlighted, a complete failure of the
State machinery in relation to controlling and protecting the
environment, forests and minerals from being illegally mined
and exploited.
                                                                        E
    . 44. Wherever and whenever the State fails to perform its
duties, the Court shall step in to ensure that Rule of Law prevails
over the abuse of process of law. Such abuse may result from
inaction or even arbitrary action of protecting the true offenders
or failure by different authorities in discharging statutory or legal
                                                                        F
obligations in consonance with the procedural and penal
statutes. This Court expressed its concern about the rampant
pilferage and illegal extraction of natural wealth and resources,
particularly, iron ore, as also the environmental degradation and
disaster that may result from unchecked intrusion into the forest
areas. This Court, vide its order dated 29th July, 2011 invoked         G
the precautionary principle, which is the essence of Article 21
of the Constitution of India as per the dictum of this Court in
the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2009) 6 SCC 142],
and had consequently issued a ban on illegal mining. The Court
also directed Relief and Rehabilitation Programmes to be                H
    1106        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A carried out in contiguous stages to promote inter-generational
  equity and the regeneration of the forest reserves. This is the
  ethos of the approach consistently taken by this Court, but this
  aspect primarily deals with the future concerns. In respect of
  the past actions, the only option is to examine in depth the huge
B monetary transactions which were effected at the cost of
  national wealth, natural resources, and to punish the offenders
  for their illegal, irregular activities. The protection of these
  resources was, and is the constitutional duty of the State and
  its instrumentalities and thus, the Court should adopt a holistic
c approach and direct comprehensive and specialized
  investigation into such events of the past.

         45. Compelled by the above circumstances and keeping
    in mind the clear position of law supra, we thus direct;

D          a)    The issues specified at point 1(a) and 1(b) of the
                 CEC Report dated 20th April, 2012 are hereby
                 referred for investigation by the Central Bureau of
                 Investigation.

           b)    All the proceedings in relation to these items, if
E                pending before any Court, shall remain stayed till
                 further orders of this Court. The CBI shall complete
                 its investigation and submit a Report to the Court
                 of competent jurisdiction with a copy of the Report
                 to be placed on the file of this Court within three
F                months.

           c)    The Report submitted by the CEC and the
                 documents annexed thereto shall be treated as
                 'informant's information to the investigating agency'
                 by the CBI.
G
           d)    The CBI shall undertake investigation in a most fair,
                 proper and unbiased manner uninfluenced by the
                 stature of the persons and the political or corporate ,
                 clout, involved in the present case. It will be open
H                to the CBI to examine and inspect the records of
  SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF                    1107
  KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

            any connected matter pending before any                  A
            investigating agency or any court.

       e)   The competent authority shall constitute the special
            investigating team, headed by an officer not below
            the rank of Additional Director General of Police/
                                                                     B
            Additional Commissioner forthwith.

       f)   Any investigation being conducted by any agency
            other than CBI shall also not progress any further,
            restricted to the items stated in clause (a) above,
            except with the leave of the Court. The CBI shall        c
            complete its investigation uninfluenced by any
            order, inquiry or investigation that is pending on the
            date of passing of this order.

       g)   This order is being passed without prejudice to the
            rights and contentions of any of the parties to the      D
            lis, as well as in any other proceedings pending
            before courts of competent jurisdiction and the
            investigating agencies.
       h)   All pleas raised on merits are kept open.                E
       i)   We direct all the parties, the Government of the
            States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and all other
            government departments of that and/or any other
            State, to fully cooperate and provide required
            information to CBI.                                      F
    46. With the above directions, we accept the
recommendation of the CEC to the extent as afore-stated.
    47. Let the matter stand over to 3rd August, 2012 for
consideration of the Report dated 27th April, 2012 filed by the      G
CEC.

R.P.                                          Matter Adjourned.