SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA .
Bench: AFTAB ALAM,SWATANTER KUMAR
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000562-000562 / 2009
Diary number: 35856 / 2009
Advocates: PRASHANT BHUSHAN Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IA NO. OF 2012
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 562 OF 2009
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
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 the contentions of the
1
Page 2
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. 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. 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 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.
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.
2
Page 3
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
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 steps that may
be required to be taken to protect the environment. In addition
to this general concern for the 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, 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 to be converted into a Statutory Committee. The draft
3
Page 4
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 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, 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 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.
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
4
Page 5
Karnataka, charging the accused under Sections 120B, 409,
420, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 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 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 2009, a
copy of which was forwarded to the 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
5
Page 6
in violation of the principles 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
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 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
place. This inaction and callousness on the part of the Central
and the State Governments and failure on their part to control
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
6
Page 7
appropriate writ, order or direction to the respective State
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 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 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.
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
such contracts are invalid and improper. The latter cases, Writ
7
Page 8
Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 and SLP(C) Nos. 7366-7367 of
2010 concern 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
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
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
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 the lease
deeds. Further, there was unchecked export of iron ore from the
border areas of the two States, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.
8
Page 9
This related to the quantum, quality and transportation of ore as
well.
10. While passing an order of complete ban on mining 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 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 the area
with the clear direction that the RR Programmes shall be
simultaneously commenced and 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 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
9
Page 10
Forest, falling in the District Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh and
the illegalities in respect of grant/renewal of mining leases and
deviations from sanctioned mine sketch in the Bellary District in
Karnataka. The Court also noted that 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, this Court required the CBI to
additionally present a status report of investigations which the
CBI had undertaken in respect of OMC in Andhra Pradesh under
FIR No. 17A/2009-CBI(Hyderabad). It was also reported that
there was massive illegal mining by third parties in the mining
lease No. 1111 of one M/s. National Minerals Development
Corporation (NMDC). It was suspected that one M/s. Deccan
Mining Syndicate (for short “DMS”) 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 CEC and the CEC was
required to put up a comprehensive report before this Court.
10
Page 11
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 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 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, 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 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.
ii) the alleged illegal export of iron ore from Belekeri Port and associated issues;
11
Page 12
iii) alleged export from Krishapatnam and Chennai Port after exports were banned by the State of Karnataka; and
iv) transfer of senior police officers on deputation to Lokayukta, Karnataka.”
13. The CEC filed two comprehensive reports before this 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 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, 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 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
12
Page 13
procedural lapses and prima facie misuse of office by the then Chief Minister, Karnataka thereby enabling his close relatives to make windfall profits and raises grave issues relating to undue favour, ethics 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 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 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 / irregularities / 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 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
13
Page 14
profit (after tax) of the said Company was only Rs.5,73 crores. Looking into the details of the other donations made by the said Company or by the other Jindal Group Companies to any other Trust / 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, 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 / supply of iron ore by / to it from the mining lease of M/s MML, it is RECOMMENDED that this Hon’ble 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 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 (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 M/s Bhagat Homes Private Limited and the other of Rs.3.5 crores to M/s
14
Page 15
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 said lessee to these two companies whose Directions / 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.”
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 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 made, before we proceed to
deal with the above noticed contentions.
17. The machinery of criminal investigation is set into motion
by the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), by the
15
Page 16
specified police officer of a jurisdictional police station or
otherwise. The CBI, in terms of its manual has adopted a
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
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
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 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,
16
Page 17
whereafter the Magistrate may or may not take cognizance of the
offence and proceed under 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. Gopal Das Sindhi & Ors. v. State of Assam
& Anr. [AIR 1961 SC 986]; Mohd. Yusuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan &
Anr. [AIR 2006 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 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 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 has been filed, that Court also enjoys the
17
Page 18
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 Samardha Sreepada Vallabha 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 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,
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
already been completed and where a direction for further
examination would have the effect of delaying the trial, if the trial
18
Page 19
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 &
Ors. [(2006) 12 SCC 421]}. Still in another case, taking the aid of
the doctrine of implied power, this Court has also stated that 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 an FIR
would not be of any consequence and the Magistrate would
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 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
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.
19
Page 20
22. A person who complains of commission of a 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 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 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 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, deferring
20
Page 21
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 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 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 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 are very wide and
the legislative intent of providing a fair trial and presumption of
21
Page 22
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 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 such
suspected persons and try them as accused in the case, 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 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 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
22
Page 23
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, 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 are punished. At this stage,
we may appropriately refer to the judgment of this Court in the
case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon 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 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 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.
23
Page 24
The plea of prejudice was also raised. While rejecting these
arguments, 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:-
“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 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.
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 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.”
24
Page 25
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 intrinsically inter-related.
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 parties, it
had not heard various companies like M/s. South West Mining
Ltd. and M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. Firstly, the CEC is not 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 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 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
25
Page 26
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 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 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 the issues independently.
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. 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
26
Page 27
there is no further degradation of the environment or damage to
the forests and so that illegal mining 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 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 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 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
27
Page 28
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
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 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-notification.
It appears that the entire gamut or the complete facts stated by
the CEC and supported by documents are not 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
28
Page 29
Yeddyurappa. The written 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 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 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. 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 from another agency that the Court
29
Page 30
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.
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 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 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 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
30
Page 31
facts and was connected together as to form the same
transaction under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and it was 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 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:
(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 suspicion,
therefore, are the circumstances for directing further and
specialized investigation.
31
Page 32
(c) The scope and ambit of present investigation is much wider
than the investigations/proceedings pending before the
Court/investigating agencies.
(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 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
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 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 any prejudice to the
32
Page 33
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
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 of a
charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction. A
magistrate is competent to direct further investigation in terms 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 pending
before him instituted on the basis of a private complaint in terms
of that Section. The provisions of Section 210 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 be in progress. All these
provisions clearly indicate the legislative scheme under the
33
Page 34
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. 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 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 in this regard would tantamount
to error of jurisdiction.
37. In the case of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6
SCC 346], this Court was considering the scope of Sections
173(8), 173(2) and 319 of the CrPC in relation to directing further
investigation. The accused raised a contention that in that case,
report had been filed, charges had been framed and nearly 21
34
Page 35
witnesses had been examined and at that stage, in furtherance to
investigation taken thereafter, if a supplementary charge-sheet is
filed and witnesses are 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 upheld by the High Court. While
dismissing the special leave petition, a Bench of this Court
observed :
“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 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 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 concerned about sub-section (8) of Section 173 which reads as under:
35
Page 36
“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 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 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 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 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 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.
18. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation, the investigating agency has to
36
Page 37
forward to the Magistrate a “further” report and not a fresh report regarding the “further” evidence obtained during such investigation.
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 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 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 was dealing with
different cases pending in relation 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 bearing even on the pending
cases. The Court, while permitting inquiry/investigation,
including further investigation, completed stayed the proceedings
in the Trial Court as well and held as under :
37
Page 38
“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 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. Mr K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel had submitted 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 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 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 affected
parties before us, we are unable to see any 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
38
Page 39
iron ore from the open market and they have 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 M/s. South West
Mining Ltd. is concerned, it has stated that 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 were paid 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 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 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
39
Page 40
based upon documents and facts brought to light by the CEC as
a result of examination 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 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
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
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.
40
Page 41
42. It was ever and shall always remain the statutory the
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 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 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
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.
41
Page 42
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
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
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 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
42
Page 43
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
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;
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 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
months.
43
Page 44
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.
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 to the CBI to examine and inspect
the records of any connected matter pending before any
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/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 complete its investigation uninfluenced by any
order, inquiry or investigation that is pending on the date of
passing of this order.
44
Page 45
g) This order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of any of the parties to the 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.
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.
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
CEC.
….…………......................CJI. (S.H. Kapadia)
…….…………......................J. (Aftab Alam)
...….…………......................J.
45
Page 46
(Swatanter Kumar) New Delhi May 11, 2012
46