Gurbir Singh vs Union of India

K. Sreedharan, CJ.

This writ petition has been moved as a public interest litigation to bring to the notice of this Court certain orders passed on behalf of the Punjab Government interfering with the due course of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the cases registered as Crime No. 7 and Crime No. 8 of 1997, by Delhi Special Police Establishment, Chandigarh Branch. The material averments made in the writ petition are to the following effect. Two F.I.Rs. were registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the C.B.I.) against the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, and some unnamed officials. The first F.I.R. was registered against the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister (fifth respondent) for his possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The second F.I.R. registered related to illegality in allocation of land and the Government funds to the Punjab Cricket Association. Allegations in the second F.I.R. were taken by the Senior I.A.S. Officers as aimed at them. In order to protect the I.A.S. Officers, Punjab Government issued notifications rescinding the sanction granted by them earlier to the C.B.I. to investigate the cases. The C.B.I. refused to stop investigation. The State Government objected to the steps taken by the C.B.I. as an intrusion into the affairs of the Punjab Government. News item to the effect that State would be compelled to take possible steps against the C.B.I. if they proceeded with investigation, was published in the newspaper. Principal Secretary to Government, Punjab in the Vigilance Department, wrote letters to various departments; corporations; statutory bodies and registered societies, to deposit all relevant records pertaining to the allotment of land to Punjab Cricket Association, into his custody, with clear intent to withhold the documents from the C.B.I. The C.B.I. conducted raids in the house and office of fifth respondent and seized vital documents, helpful to the prosecution in the case registered against him. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6, who held keyposition in the Punjab Government, are trying to interfere with due course of investigation of cases registered by the C.B.I. These high officers are trying to place themselves above law. When respondents No. 4 to 6 are holding high executive posts, it is not possible for the subordinate officials to freely cooperate with the investigation of the cases by the C.B.I. So, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 are to be placed under suspension or in the alternative, sent on long leave, during the pendency of the said cases. On these averments, petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to suspend respondents Nos. 4 to 6 from service or to send them on long leave till C.B.I. completes investigation into the cases registered by them.

During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8586 of 1997, on April 25, 1997. Therein, it was alleged that the coterie of I.A.S. officers, holding important positions in the State of Punjab, are using their offices to influence other officers not to cooperate with the investigation by C.B.I. Some top officers of the Punjab Government succeeded in influencing the Central Government, and manipulated the transfer of three officers of the C.B.I. team, i.e., D.I.G., S.S.P., and investigating officer from Chandigarh. Therefore, petitioner prayed for directing authorities to retain the team of officers in the C.B.I. investigating the cases, at Chandigarh, till the entire investigation is complete.

Petitioner later moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11407 of 1997, praying for impleading Punjab Cricket Association, Mohali, and Punjab Urban Development Authority, as additional respondents Nos. 8 and 9 and also to seize the records pertaining to transactions in Punjab Urban Development Authority, and accounts of Punjab Cricket Association.

On behalf the State of Punjab, written statement was filed by the Secretary, Personnel, Punjab Government. Contentions relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, which are raised therein can be summarised as follows. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are clear in our opinion that we are not, at this stage, in this case, called upon to go into the circumstances under which land was allotted to the Punjab Cricket Association, or the circumstances under which that Association raised funds for laying the cricket ground. Flurry of notes were exchanged between the then Chief Minister and the then Chief Secretary in the two cases which are now known as P.C.A. Stadium case and the Bikramjit Singh case. In the P.C.A. Stadium case, there was no complaint of any kind prior to February 6, 1997. The then Chief Secretary based his knowledge and judgment on the study of one file of the Sports Department and a vague general note received from the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority. Inferences contained in the note of the then Chief Secretary were not borne out of the note of the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority. A notification was issued on February 7, 1997, referring the case for investigation to C.B.I. The other case involving Shri Bikramjit Singh was also handled in the same manner on February 7, 1997. In the general election held in the State of Punjab, a new Government, headed by new Chief Minister, took office on February 12, 1997. The new Chief Minister and the new Chief Secretary were deliberately kept in the dark about the two cases referred to C.B.I. by the outgoing Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister. Case against Bikramjit Singh was enquired into by the State Vigilance Bureau. The finding of the Bureau was that between January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1993, the officer had an income of Rs. 31,51,802/ and had spent Rs. 34,27,437/. The excess expenditure of Rs. 3,42,765/ being ten per cent of the total income was directed to be ignored. Thereby, the complaint was only to be dropped. Disagreeing with the recommendations of the DirectorGeneral, Vigilance; Chief Secretary recommended that the matter needs to be probed in depth. The Chief Minister on February 6, 1997, agreed with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary. Accordingly, the Chief Secretary issued the notification on February 7, 1997, referring the case to C.B.I. for investigation. When the files were salvaged from the previous Chief Secretary, new Government examined the propriety of the decisions taken in the two cases.

The new Government issued notification rescinding the earlier notifications entrusting the two cases to C.B.I. and also requested the C.B.I. to treat the two cases as having been withdrawn from their jurisdiction. The C.B.I. did not accept the stand of the new Government and continued with the investigation. The Government of Punjab has, it is averred, plenty of justification and good grounds to contest the contentions raised by the C.B.I. that they could go on with investigation even though Government had rescinded the earlier notifications. Written statement concluded by stating that the Government of Punjab was fully justified in rescinding the notifications issued earlier on February 7, 1997 and after that the C.B.I. did not have the jurisdiction to continue with the investigation in the two cases.

Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 have filed separate written statements virtually reiterating the contentions raised in the written statement filed on behalf of the State. They highlighted mala fides of the previous Chief Secretary in entrusting the investigation of the cases with the C.B.I. and the socalled unholy haste with which it was done on February 7, 1997.

Central Bureau of Investigation, which was impleaded as additional 7th respondent, filed a detailed written statement. It is averred therein that a case RC 8/97CHG (Punjab Cricket Stadium) was registered on February 25, 1997 with the consent of the Government of Punjab conveyed by the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, vide his letter dated February 7, 1997. After registration of the case, C.B.I. took up the investigation. Honorary Secretary to Punjab Cricket Association informed that State Government withdrew the sanction given to C.B.I. to investigate the case and directed the Punjab Cricket Association to hand over all the records to the Government. Principal Secretary to Government, Punjab, Vigilance Department, directed the Punjab Cricket Association and other Government Officers not to part with any record to the C.B.I. In that letter, Vigilance Department stated that the Punjab Government is bound to use its machinery to enforce its order. Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala was moved by the Punjab Cricket Association praying that before issuing any warrant for search or production of documents, they may be heard. That application was dismissed by the Court as not pressed since by that time, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, had already dismissed a similar petition. The Punjab Cricket Association has not produced many documents which were called for. On March 6, 1997, Government of Punjab addressed letter to the Director, C.B.I. advising him to stop the investigation of the case and to instruct concerned authorities not to part with any record to the C.B.I. The Director of C.B.I. was also informed that Government of Punjab is bound to use its machinery to enforce its orders and it hoped that C.B.I. would not create any unpleasant situation for itself and the Government of Punjab by insisting on further investigation. The C.B.I. moved the Court for necessary direction to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police of the Government of Punjab, to produce the documents in the investigation of the said case. As per Court order, search warrants issued were executed. Consent once granted by the State Government to investigate into the case cannot be rescinded retrospectively. In F.I.R. 7 of 1997, registered against Bikramjit Singh, I.A.S., various incriminating articles/documents were recovered which are being scrutinised.

Investigation is in progress in F.I.R. 8 of 1997 and decision regarding chargesheet of the accused can only be taken after completion of investigation. Under orders of Court, Punjab Government have now supplied some documents. Punjab Cricket Association has not parted with original documents. As investigation proceeds and the role of the suspected persons becomes clearer, it is probable that additional records may be required and concerned officers have to be examined. The Punjab Cricket Association and Punjab State Urban Development Authority have not been fully cooperating in investigation of Crime 8 of 1997. C.B.I. is required to collect many more records from Punjab Cricket Association relating to the grantinaid amounting to over Rs. 10 crores given by the Punjab Government and expenditure in connection with the construction of the stadium and club house. Records relating to funds collected by Cricket Association from the State, Public Sector Undertakings and private parties are also to be scrutinised. Written statement concluded by stating that RC 7/97 and 8/97 were registered on receipt of proper consent from Government of Punjab and investigation is being carried on fairly, impartially and in a transparent manner.

Notification No. SSCS/97/40 dated February 7, 1997, was issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab. That notification reads :

"In pursuance of the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946), the Governor of Punjab hereby accords his consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Punjab for the investigation of the matter concerning transfer of about 15 acres of Govt. land in Mohali by the Sports Department to the Punjab Cricket Association, as also for other matters connected with the utilisation of the land and the funds granted by Government to the Cricket Association to see whether any offences, attempts, abetment and misuse of official position, have been made for private benefit. It should be enquired whether any culpable offences are made out under the existing laws by the concerned officers in the Department of Sports, the Department of Housing and Urban Department and Industries during the period 19911996."

Government of India agreed to the request of the Government of Punjab and issued notification under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, vide Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi, No. 228/13/97AVD.II dated February 25, 1997. On the basis of above authority, Crime 8 of 1997 was registered on February 25, 1997, at 6.35 p.m.

Similar to the notification mentioned above, notification No. SSCS/97/42 dated February 7, 1997, was issued by the State Government requesting granting consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate the offence committed by the fifth respondent. Government of India agreed to the request and issued notification under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, vide Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi, No. 228/12/97AVD.II dated February 21, 1997.

Pursuant to the notification mentioned above, CR 7/97 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Chandigarh, was registered at 6.05 p.m. on February 25, 1997, against the fifth respondent, for offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A copy of the F.I.R. is marked in this case as Annexure R3/4 along with the written statement filed on behalf of the State. A reading of that F.I.R. clearly beings out the offence with which respondent No. 5 has been charged.

Crime 8/97 of Delhi Special Police Establishment, Chandigarh, was registered at 6.35 p.m. on February 25, 1997, against unknown officials under Section 120B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On February 26, 1997, Government of Punjab, issued notification No. 22/1/934(v)PSV/97/63, rescinding the notification dated February 7, 1997, permitting the C.B.I. to take up the investigation against the fifth respondent Shri Bikramjit Singh. Likewise, on February 28, 1997, notification No. PSV97/62, was issued rescinding notification of February 7, 1997, issued by the Punjab Government, on the basis of which Crime 8/97 was registered by the C.B.I.

Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, authorises the Central Government to specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment by notification in the official gazette. By such notification, the Delhi Special Police Establishment gets the authority to investigate the offences or the class of offences specified therein. This power of investigation which is conferred on the Delhi Special Police Establishment can be extended by the Central Government to any area or a State. If the power is so extended by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 5, the same need not be by any notification. Central Government need pass an order alone. This power of the Central Government to extend activities of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to a State can be made with the consent of the State concerned. Section 6 states :

"Nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State."

This provisions does not contemplate any notification to be issued by the Government of the State giving its consent for the Delhi Special Police Establishment to carry out the investigation in the State. When the State Government gives its consent to have any particular case which took place within its territory, to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, the Central Government may order the said establishment to carry out the investigation. In the instant case, Government of Punjab gave its consent, in writing, to the Central Government to extend the jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of offences mentioned therein. Following the consent given by the State Government, Central Government, by order, extended the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to Punjab for investigating the cases. Thereupon, two F.I.Rs. mentioned earlier, were registered on February 25, 1997. Thereafter came notifications of February 26, 1997 and February 28, 1997. By these notifications, the State Government wanted to withdraw the consent given earlier on February 7, 1997. This is not permissible in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. The Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994(2) RCR (Crl.) 553 : JT 1994(3) S.C. 140. Therein their lordships have categorically held that an order revoking an order giving consent under Section 6 of the Act can have only prospective operation and would not effect matters in which action has been initiated prior to the issuance of the order of revocation. In view of this statement of law, the latter notifications issued by the Punjab Government can in no way interfere with the investigation of Crime 7/97 and Crime 8/97 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Another contention raised by the learned counsel representing respondents is that F.I.R. in Crime 8/97 does not relate to any specific offence committed by any named individual and so, the registration of that crime is illegal. We are not in a position to agree with this argument advanced by the respondents. As per Section 157(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, if the officerincharge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence from information received by him, he is bound to report the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence. On going through the F.I.R. in Crime 8/97, it cannot be said that the police officer had no reason to suspect the commission of an offence. Therefore, C.B.I. was justified in registering the F.I.R.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently tried to question the bona fides of the Government of Punjab in issuing notifications dated February 7, 1997, requiring the Delhi Special Police Establishment to take over investigation of the two cases. According to the learned counsel, the then Chief Secretary acted in a mala fide manner and there was an unholy haste in issuing the notifications. These contentions, we are afraid, are outside the purview of the issues raised in this writ petition. So, we are not pronouncing on this contention raised by counsel. Notifications dated February 7, 1997, have been issued by the State Government. Those notifications are to be presumed to have been regularly issued.

The F.I.Rs. registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation have been properly registered and the Central Bureau of Investigation was justified in proceeding with the investigation untrammelled by the two notifications dated February 26, 1997 and February 28, 1997. When C.B.I. had taken up the investigation of the cases, the Vigilance Secretary was not justified in trying to interfere with the investigation. He was clearly in error in writing to the various departments and the Punjab Urban Development Authority not to supply the documents called for by the C.B.I. to them. The said action can be treated only as an outcome of ignorance of the legal provisions governing the investigation of cases by the C.B.I. Learned AdvocateGeneral, representing the State of Punjab, has rightly and fairly conceded before us that the State Government will cooperate with the C.B.I. in the investigation of the abovementioned two cases. We record the same and leave the matter at that.

The Central Bureau of Investigation concluded their written statement stating,

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Government of Punjab and President of the PCA may be directed to hand over all the relevant documents asked for by the CBI."

We have held that registration of Crime 7/97 and Crime 8/97 by the C.B.I. was proper and that the C.B.I. has to complete the investigation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. As an investigating agency, they are having all powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to collect materials. We hope that the C.B.I. is aware of its powers under the Code and will resort to those provisions for completing the investigation. If any individual or authority is interfering with their investigation, they are to take appropriate legal action against them in accordance with law.

The question as to which team of officers in the Delhi Special Police Establishment, is to carry out the investigation in these cases, is a matter to be decided by the Head of the Central Bureau of Investigation. This Court is not to interfere with that discretion of the Director, but we are very clear in our mind that the frequent change of investigating officers in the course of investigation will certainly adversely affect the investigation. The Director and the higher authorities are to take note of this fact and rise to the occasion so as to enable a proper and effective investigation to be carried out. We utilize this opportunity to impress upon the C.B.I. to complete the investigation in the two cases registered by them without any undue delay.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

July 23, 1997. Sd/

N.K. Sodhi, J. K. SREEDHARAN.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

N.K. SODHI, J.

I have gone through the judgment prepared by My Lord the Chief Justice and am in full agreement with him that the notifications issued by the State Government on February 26 and February 28, 1997 withdrawing its consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of the two cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on February 25, 1997 are of no legal consequence in so far as these two cases are concerned and that they cannot stall their investigation. I also agree with the learned Chief Justice that the two First Information Reports have been properly recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation and that a reading thereof discloses the commission of offences which need to be investigated. The question of mala fides as sought to be raised by the respondents is not the subject matter of the present writ petition and I agree that the notification dated February 7, 1997 whereby the Governor of Punjab accorded his consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of the two cases has to be presumed to have been regularly issued. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that some directions need to be issued to the respondents.

In view of our finding that the consent of the State Government was validly given under Section 6 of the Act and that its subsequent withdrawal did not have the effect of stopping the investigations in the cases which already stood registered, the Central Bureau of Investigation had to proceed with the investigation of the two cases registered as per First Information Report Nos. 7 and 8 of February 25, 1997.

It is expected of an agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation to objectively, fairly, honestly and expeditiously investigate into every accusation against each and every person reasonably suspected in the involvement of the offences in accordance with law without shielding or victimising any person. We find from the record that the State Government and its officers have so far successfully stalled the investigations of the two cases. After the consent of the State Government was withdrawn respondent 4 who is the Chief Secretary addressed two communications on February 26, 1997 to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. In one of the letters the Director was informed that the earlier notification dated February 7, 1997 according sanction of the State Government stood rescinded and that the cases stood withdrawn from the Central Bureau of Investigation. A copy of the notification rescinding the earlier notification was sent along with this letter. In the other letter the Chief Secretary informed the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation that the earlier consent had been granted by his predecessor in a mala fide manner and in undue haste. In reply to these two letters the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi addressed a detailed letter dated February 28, 1997 to the Chief Secretary informing the letter that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 1994(1) RCR (Crl) 553 the investigation which had commenced prior to the withdrawal of consent had to be completed and that it would not be affected by subsequently withdrawing the consent. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment was quoted in this communication. In reply to the aforesaid letter the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Vigilance addressed a communication to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation on March 6, 1997 in which he also made a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L. Dorji''s case and reiterated that in view of the withdrawal of the consent the Central Bureau of Investigation had no authority to continue with the investigation of the two cases. While referring to the two orders withdrawing the consent of the State Government, it was observed in this letter as under :

"So long as the orders of Government of Punjab are issued and standing, the Government of Punjab is bound to use its machinery to enforce its orders. It is hoped that the CBI would not create any unpleasant situation for itself and the Government of Punjab by insisting on further investigation.

You are, therefore, in the light of what has been stated above, advised to immediately stop investigation in the cases of Mr. Bikramjit Singh and transfer of land at Mohali by PUDA to P.C.A. The Government has advised the concerned parties not to part with any record to the CBI. You are also further advised to desist from further taking any action towards investigation against any of the officers of the Punjab Government immediately in the light of the fact that consents specifically stand rescinded."

A reading of the aforesaid communication from the State Government to the Central Bureau of Investigation makes it abundantly clear that not only did the State Government and its officers want the investigation to be stopped but they even went to the extent of threatening the investigating agency to use the might of the State against it if it continued with the investigation. The State Government resisted the investigation in the two cases and even moved petitions in the Courts of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala to stop the investigation which were dismissed and directions were issued to the State Government and also to the Punjab Cricket Association to hand over all the necessary records to the investigating agency but inspite of all this the records have still not been handed over. The Central Bureau of Investigation in its reply has submitted before us that it has not received the necessary records from the State Government nor from the Punjab Cricket Association in spite of the Court directions and notices issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this background I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with the observation made by Hon''ble the Chief Justice that the action of the State Government and its officers in interfering with the investigation could be the result of ignorance of the correct legal position. Respondents 4 to 6 are senior officers of the Indian Administrative Service holding senior positions in the State of Punjab and in the light of the letters written to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation bringing to their notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L. Dorji''s case, they cannot be said to be ignorant about the legal position and, in my opinion, they have interfered with the investigations of the two cases and succeeded in not allowing it to continue. Respondent 4 is the Chief Secretary of the State having control over all the departments and respondent 6 who also happens to be the Chairman of the Punjab Cricket Association is the Vice Chairman of the Punjab Urban Development Authority. We were informed that respondent 5 is no longer Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and, therefore, he does not wield much power in so far as the records are concerned. It may be recalled that one of the cases namely First Information Report No. 3 pertains to the transfer of about 15 acres of Government land in Mohali by the Sports Department to the Punjab Cricket Association and also with other matters connected with the utilisation of the land and the funds granted by the Government to the Cricket Association.

The Central Bureau of Investigation during the course of investigation has to find out whether any offences were committed and whether there was any misuse of the official position by any officer in the Department of Sports, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Industries. The records from these three departments and also from the Punjab Cricket Association are absolutely necessary to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation so that it could continue with the investigation expeditiously. I, therefore, direct respondents 2 to 6 to cooperate with the Central Bureau of Investigation and hand over all the records that are required by the investigating agency. As regards the records required from the State Government, the Central Bureau of Investigation should submit a list to the Chief Secretary of the State who will ensure that the same are handed over to the investigating agency within a week thereafter. Similarly, in regard to records required from the Punjab Cricket Association, a list of the same be supplied to respondent 6 who happens to be its Chairman and he is directed to ensure that the records are made available to the investigating agency within a week thereafter.

It is true that the Central Bureau of Investigation has vast powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to recover the records from the State Government and its officers but we have seen that it has not been successful in the past because of the noncooperative and confrontationist attitude of the Government as is seen from the letter dated March 6, 1997 referred to above. The State Government has already addressed letters to its various departments not to part with the record demanded by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It has, therefore, become necessary to issue the above directions notwithstanding the assurance given by the Advocate General. An unusual situation created has to be dealt with in an unusual manner. Credit must go to the investigating agency for not precipitating the ugly situation referred to by the State Government in its letter dated March 6, 1997 but all this was at the cost of the investigations in the two cases being bogged down. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue to prevail and in this extraordinary situation the Court cannot shirk its duty to issue necessary directions. We are issuing these directions in the hope that the State Government and its officers will now extend a whole hearted cooperation to the investigating agency which will expeditiously conclude the investigation in accordance with law and submit its final report to the concerned Court at the earliest. If at any stage of the investigations the Central Bureau of Investigation finds that there is lack of cooperation from the State Government or the records are being withheld, it shall be open to it to exercise its powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even seek further directions from this Court.

Before concluding, it may be mentioned that it was brought to our notice through Civil Miscellaneous 8586 of 1997 that three senior officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation namely, Deputy Inspector General, Senior Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer connected with the investigations of these cases were transferred during the course of the investigation and a prayer has been made for a direction to the Union of India that these officers be retained. Since these officers were stated to be connected with the investigations and the Senior Superintendent of Police has been transferred when the investigation was in progress, one raises one''s eyebrow but it is not for this Court to direct as to which should be the investigating team. The prayer made in the application cannot thus be granted. We hope that these transfers were only a matter of coincidence and not meant to slow down the pace of investigation.