SANJAY DUBEYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

                        [2023] 4 S.C.R. 939                             939


                         SANJAY DUBEY                                   A
                                 v.
     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1466 of 2023)
                           MAY 11, 2023                                 B
                 [KRISHNA MURARI AND
              AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
       Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227 – Power of High
Court to issue additional directions/orders in bail pleas – FIR was
                                                                        C
filed against accused u/ss.376, 506, IPC; POCSO Act, SCST Act
and IT Act –FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant-
Inspectorwith a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be
undertaken however, the DNA examination was not carried out –
In the meantime, the accused filed his bail plea – High Courtcalled
for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith –     D
Appellant was found guilty of dereliction of dutyand direction
wasissued for holding departmental proceedings against him – On
appeal, held: High Court is a Constitutional Courtpossessing wide
repertoire of powers – It has original, appellate and suo motu powers
u/Articles 226 and 227 which are meant for taking care of situations
                                                                        E
where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are
required in the interest of justice – However, in the present case,
since the Superintendent of Police, the officer superior to the
appellant had himself stated that he would take action against the
appellant and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major penalty,
therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to further issue    F
direction for action against the appellant –However,since the case
is sensitive and prima facie there was callousness on the part of the
police officer(s) concerned, including the appellant, in conducting
a proper investigation,on facts, the impugned judgment not interfered
with–Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860
                                                                        G
–ss.376, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012– Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Information Technology Act, 2000.
      Administration of Justice–Administration of CriminalJustice
–Significance of investigation – Discussed.
                                                                        H
                                939
940            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           Practice and Procedure – Judgments – Interpretation of –
      Held: Judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems –They are
      not to be construed as statutes andspecific cases are authorities
      only for what they actually decide.
            Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v State of Gujarat
B           (2019) 14 SCC 522; State Represented by Inspector of
            Police v M Murugesan (2020) 15 SCC 251 : [2020] 2
            SCR 553 – distinguished.
            B S Hari Commandant v Union of India 2023 SCC
            OnLine SC 413; Sidhartha Vashist v State (NCT of
C           Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 : [2010] 4 SCR 103; Manoj v
            State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353; State of
            Gujarat v Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 : [2014] 1
            SCR 197– relied on.
            Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh,
D           (1983) 4 SCC 353 : [1983] 3 SCR 843; M/s Amar Nath
            Om Prakash v State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 345 :
            [1985] 2 SCR 72; BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited
            (2020) 4 SCC 234 : [2019] 17 SCR 742; Chintels India
            Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited (2021) 4
            SCC 602– referred to.
E
                            Case Law Reference
      [2020] 2 SCR 553                distinguished           Para 8
      [1983] 3 SCR 843                referred to             Para 18
      [1985] 2 SCR 72                 referred to             Para 18
F
      [2019] 17 SCR 742               referred to             Para 18
      [2010] 4 SCR 103                relied on               Para 22
      [2014] 1 SCR 197                relied on               Para 23

G           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      1466 of 2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2022 of the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRC No. 43998 of
      2022.
H
SANJAY DUBEY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND                             941
                     ANOTHER

      Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Awanish Kumar, Siddharth Kumar             A
Sharma, S. K. Pandey, Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Anshul Rai, M/
s. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Mukul Singh, A.A.G., Mrinal Gopal Elker, Rajan Chourasia, Advs.
for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            B

      AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
        Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
      2. Leave granted.
                                                                            C
       3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order
dated 21.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”)
rendered by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in MCRC No.
43998 of 2022, in which a finding, albeit prima facie, of being guilty of
dereliction of duty against the appellant has been recorded. Further, it    D
was observed in the Impugned Judgment that the appellant is not fit to
be assigned any important responsibility in the Police Department and is
unfit to hold any responsible post. It has further been noted that the
Superintendent of Police, Katni had already line-attached the appellant
and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major penalty, for which he    E
would get conducted a preliminary enquiry by the Additional
Superintendent of Police and forward the report to the Disciplinary
Authority for imposition of a major penalty.
      4. The Impugned Judgment also records a ‘direction’ issued to
take appropriate action against the appellant for dereliction of duty,      F
insubordination and causing undue disruption in the proceedings of the
High Court.
      THE FACTUAL PRISM:
       5. The Appellant was an Inspector of Sleemanabad Police Station,
Katni where FIR No. 424 of 2021 dated 18.07.2021 was registered             G
against the accused therein, one Shiv Kumar Kushwah (hereinafter
referred to as the “accused”) under Sections 376 & 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), Sections 3 and
4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”), Sections 3(1)(W)(ii) and
                                                                            H
942            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
      of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information
      Technology Act, 2000. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report
      (hereinafter referred to as the “FSL Report”) was forwarded to the
      office of the Superintendent of Police, Katni on 25.10.2021. The FSL
      Report was forwarded to the appellant with a note that DNA examination
B
      as per guidelines be undertaken. However, the DNA examination was
      not carried out. In the meantime, the accused filed MCRC No.43998 of
      2022 seeking bail before the High Court.
             6. During the proceedings, the High Court called for the case-
      diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith. This led the High
C
      Court to seek the personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police,
      Katni and the In-charge of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
      Jabalpur. On 21.09.2022, the duo mentioned supra appeared before the
      High Court, and informed that the FSL Report was sent to the office of
      Superintendent of Police, Katni on 25.10.2021. The Superintendent of
D     Police, Katni stated that the FSL report was forwarded to the appellant
      along with communication dated 27.10.2021, with a note that DNA
      examination as per guidelines be carried out. However, the same was
      not done, as the appellant took the stand that the concerned Woman
      Sub-Inspector had not brought the FSL Report to his knowledge.
E            7. The learned Government Advocate for the State stated before
      the High Court that the case-diary had been received in the Office of
      the learned Advocate General on 13.09.2022, but the FSL Report was
      not included therewith. This prompted the High Court to pass the
      Impugned Judgment, as discussed above.
F           SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
             8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the
      accused had filed MCRC No.43998 of 2022 under Section 439 of the
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
      “Code”), which only relates to grant of bail to an accused in custody.
G     Thus, the direction to take action and hold a departmental enquiry as
      also the recording of finding against the appellant cannot be sustained.
      In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon
      the decisions of this Court in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v State
      of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 522 and State Represented by Inspector
      of Police v M Murugesan, (2020) 15 SCC 251. It was contended
H
SANJAY DUBEY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND                                 943
      ANOTHER [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

that no matter how laudable the object, while deciding an application for       A
bail, the Court cannot enter into any other realm.
      SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:
       9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
appellant had, clearly, exhibited insubordination, incompetence and,
dereliction of duty in an important matter and thus, in any way, was            B
liable to be proceeded against. It was submitted that the Departmental
Committee concerned had also conducted an enquiry where the appellant
and some other officials were found negligent in performing their duties
in providing the FSL Report along with the case-diary besides suppressing
material documents. Learned counsel added that due to an interim stay           C
apropos the departmental proceedings against the appellant, granted vide
Order dated 23.11.2022, the matter could not be taken to its logical end.
      ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
       10. Having given the matter our anxious and thoughtful
consideration, though the appellant may have a point that, stricto sensu,       D
in a petition under Section 439 of the Code, the concerned Court ought
not to travel beyond considering the specific issue viz. whether to grant
bail or reject bail to an accused in custody, it cannot be lost sight of that
the Court concerned herein was not a ‘Court of Session’ but the High
Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh, established under Article 214 of         E
the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”).
      11. This singular fact, for reasons elaborated hereinafter, leads us
to decline interfering with the Impugned Judgment, but for different
reasons. We have no hesitation in stating that had the Impugned Judgment
been rendered by a Court of Session, the factors that would have weighed        F
with us would be starkly different.
       12. A little digression is necessitated. The High Court is a
Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High
Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution. The powers under Articles 226 and 227 of
                                                                                G
the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where the High
Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of
justice. Recently, in B S Hari Commandant v Union of India, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 413, the present coram had the occasion to hold as
under:
                                                                                H
944             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           “50. Article 226 of the Constitution is a succour to remedy
            injustice, and any limit on exercise of such power, is only
            self-imposed. Gainful refer- ence can be made to, amongst
            others, A V Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani,
            (1962) 1 SCR 573 and U P State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v.
            Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41. The High Courts,
B
            under the Constitutional scheme, are endowed with the ability
            to issue prerogative writs to safeguard rights of citizens. For
            ex- actly this reason, this Court has never laid down any strait-
            jacket principles that can be said to have “cribbed, cabined
            and confined” [to borrow the term employed by the Hon.
C           Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in E P Royappa v. State of
            Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 : AIR 1974 SC 555] the
            extraordinary powers vested under Arti- cles 226 or 227 of
            the Constitution. Adjudged on the anvil of Nawab Shaqafath
            Ali Khan (supra), this was a fit case for the High Court to
D           have examined the matter threadbare, more so, when it did
            not involve navigating a factual minefield.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
             13. Returning to the present case, though usually the proper course
      of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the
E     acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under
      Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that
      there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/
      investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice
      delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes.
F            14. We are of the view that the learned Single Bench could have
      directed institution of separate proceedings taking recourse to Article
      226 of the Constitution, after formulating reasons and points for
      consideration. Thereafter, the matter should have been referred to the
      learned Chief Justice of the High Court for placing it before an appropriate
      Bench, which would proceed in accordance with law, of course, after
G
      affording adequate opportunity to the person(s) proceeded against.
             15. With regard to the High Court’s justified concern to prevent
      miscarriage of justice, separate/fresh proceedings could have been
      instituted as indicated above. We hasten to add that our observations are
      not to be construed to imply that the High Courts should delve into the
H
SANJAY DUBEY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND                                   945
      ANOTHER [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

efficacy of investigation at the stage of bail, and the present judgment is       A
not to be misread to haul up the investigative agencies/officers in all
cases.
       16. This Court could have interfered with the ‘direction’ for
departmental proceedings against the appellant, as learned counsel for
the appellant advanced, had been so done in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai               B
Datanta (supra) and M Murugesan (supra). However, it would be
proper to take note that in the aforesaid two cases, the factual positions
were quite different. In Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra),
the Court took note of the fact that in the case involving rape of a minor,
the High Court ordering the accused and the appellant therein, who was
the grandmother of the victim along with parents of the victim to undergo         C
scientific tests viz. lie detection, brain-mapping and narco-analysis was
not only in contravention of the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence
but also a violation of statutory requirements and thus, the bail granted to
the accused was cancelled. The facts of the instant case are quite
different, and ergo, Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra) does                 D
not aid the appellant.
       17. In M Murugesan (supra), it was noted that the jurisdiction
of High Court is limited to grant or refuse to grant bail pending trial and
such jurisdiction ends when the bail application is finally decided. In this
background, the High Court, after taking a decision on the bail application,      E
having retained the file and directing the State to constitute a Committee
and seek its recommendation on reformation, rehabilitation and re-
integration of convicts/accused persons and best practices for improving
the quality of investigation and also to obtain District-wise data from
State and upon submission of final data, after reviewing the same, making
such data a part of the order after decision on bail application, was held        F
to be beyond jurisdiction. In the present case, on the date of passing of
the Impugned Judgment, the bail application was still at large, and had
not yet been decided one way or the other.
       18. There is no quibble with the propositions lucidly enunciated in
Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta (supra) and M Murugesan (supra).                  G
Yet, as our discussions in the preceding paragraphs display, the same
are inapplicable to the extant factual matrix. It is too well-settled that
judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems; they are not to be
construed as statutes, and; specific cases are authorities only for what
they actually decide. We do not want to be verbose in reproducing the             H
946            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     relevant paragraphs but deem it proper to indicate some authorities on
      this point – Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh,
      (1983) 4 SCC 353 and M/s Amar Nath Om Prakash v State of Punjab,
      (1985) 1 SCC 345 – which have been reiterated, inter alia, in BGS
      SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234, and Chin- tels
      India Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC
B
      602.
             19. In the present case, the judgment impugned was passed before
      the final disposal of the bail application by the High Court. On a closer
      scrutiny of the judgment impugned, it is clear that the Superintendent of
      Police, Katni, while appearing in person on 21.09.2022 had submitted
C     that he had already line-attached the appellant vide an order dated
      20.09.2022 and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major penalty.
      The High Court was informed that the Superintendent of Police, Katni
      would “get conducted preliminary enquiry in the hands of the
      Additional S.P. and forward the report to the disciplinary authority
D     of the T.I.to initiate inquiry for major penalty.”
              20. The aforenoted was only reiterated by the High Court in the
      latter portion of the judgment impugned, in the following terms:
            “Let DNA report be now produced within a period of three
            weeks by the concerned Officer for which Superintendent of
E           Po- lice, Katni shall personally monitor that sample is sent in
            time to the concerned DNA Testing Laboratory and report is
            ob- tained besides taking appropriate action against the
            concerned T.I. Shri Sanjay Dubey for dereliction of duty,
            insubordi- nation and causing undue disruption in the
F           proceedings of the High Court.” (sic)
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
              21. A combined reading of the afore-extracted snippets makes it
      crystal clear that the Superintendent of Police, Katni, who was the officer
      superior to the appellant, himself had stated that he would take action
G     against the appellant and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major
      penalty, which statement was a suo motu act and not upon or flowing
      from any direction of the Court. Therefore, there was no occasion for
      the High Court to further observe for action against the appellant to be
      taken, as already, the Superintendent of Police, Katni had taken a decision
      to initiate enquiry against the appellant for imposition of major penalty.
H
SANJAY DUBEY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND                                947
      ANOTHER [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

       22. Be that as it may, the facts of the case prima facie disclose       A
that in such an important and sensitive case, there had been, at least
prima facie, callousness on the part of the police officer(s) concerned,
including the appellant, in conducting a proper investigation to bring on
record all relevant materials in support of the truth. Amidst such backdrop,
the chances of undue benefit accruing to the accused, leading to
                                                                               B
miscarriage of justice, cannot be ruled out, and may, in fact, have
increased. The significance of the investigative component cannot be
emphasised enough, and the views of this Court on such aspect have
been brought to the fore in Sidhartha Vashist v State (NCT of Delhi),
(2010) 6 SCC 1 and Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2
SCC 353.                                                                       C
      23. In this connection, on a slightly different but connected context,
it would be apposite to refer to the judgment in State of Gujarat v
Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, wherein the Court opined and directed
as under:
      “22. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the            D
      justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice.
      Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the
      inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted.
      It is therefore, essential that every State should put in place a
      procedural mechanism which would ensure that the cause of                E
      justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the
      safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. In furtherance
      of the above purpose, it is considered essential to direct the
      Home Department of every State, to examine all orders of
      acquittal and to record reasons for the failure of each
      prosecution case. A standing committee of senior officers of             F
      the police and prosecution departments, should be vested with
      the aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the hands
      of the above Committee, should be utilized for crystallising
      mistakes committed during investigation, and/or prosecution,
      or both. The Home Department of every State Government                   G
      will incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior
      investigation/prosecution officials course-content drawn from
      the above consideration. The same should also constitute
      course-content of refresher training programmes for senior
      investigating/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility
                                                                               H
948            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           for preparing training programmes for officials, should be
            vested in the same Committee of senior officers referred to
            above. Judgments like the one in hand (depicting more than
            10 glaring lapses in the investigation/prosecution of the case),
            and similar other judgments, may also be added to the training
            programmes. The course content will be reviewed by the above
B
            Committee annually, on the basis of fresh inputs, including
            emerging scientific tools of investigation, judgments of courts,
            and on the basis of experiences gained by the Standing
            Committee while examining failures, in unsuccessful
            prosecution of cases. We further direct, that the above training
C           programme be put in place within 6 months. This would ensure
            that those persons who handle sensitive matters concerning
            investigation/prosecution are fully trained to handle the same.
            Thereupon, if any lapses are committed by them, they would
            not be able to feign innocence, when they are made liable to
            suffer departmental action, for their lapses.”
D
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
             24. While respectfully reiterating the above, drawing an analogy
      therefrom, as the lapses are grave, and additionally, but importantly, the
      factum that the authority viz. the Superintendent of Police, Katni, itself
E     realised lapses had crept into the investigation, and decided to initiate
      proceedings against the appellant (and others), the operative portion of
      the judgment impugned by the High Court, becomes, merely reiterative,
      perhaps in more direct terms, of what had been stated before it. As
      such, purely, in the extant facts and circumstances, the Impugned
      Judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. We propose
F     no order as to costs.
            25. In sum, on an overall circumspection, and in view of the
      discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the instant appeal deserves to
      be, and is, dismissed, with the caveat that the High Court’s observations
      are not to be treated as findings against the appellant.
G
             26. Interim order dated 23.11.2022, in the present case, is vacated.
      However, it is made clear that any observation(s) made by the High
      Court in relation to the appellant in the judgment impugned shall not
      cause any prejudice to him in the departmental proceedings, which shall
      take its own course, in accordance with law, and after providing full and
H     effective opportunity to the appellant.
SANJAY DUBEY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND                           949
      ANOTHER [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

      27. The appellant would be entitled to raise all grounds and        A
contentions, as may be available to him, in facts and law, in the
departmental proceedings. Our observations aforesaid, equally,
will not prejudice the appellant, nor shall they be used against the
accused.
                                                                          B
Divya Pandey                                          Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)




                                                                          C




                                                                          D




                                                                          E




                                                                          F




                                                                          G




                                                                          H