Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principal Secretary and Others

In the course of hearing on the scope of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short "2003 Act), particularly Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) thereof and Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short "D.S.P.E. Act"), Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) handed over a written note. Besides the legal arguments submitted in the note, it is stated in paragraph 11 that OBI is ready to submit report/closure of all cases to this Court with copy to Central Vigilance Commission (C.V.C.) and C.V.C. may in turn can give its comments to this Court. However, this may not be treated as precedent for C.B.I. Mr. Amrendra Sharan submits orally that by the expression "court cases" in para 11 is meant for closure of preliminary enquiries. He further submits that till date, there are 20 matters where the Inquiry Officers recommended regular cases but C.B.I. head office ordered otherwise. A compilation thereof was handed over by Mr. Amrendra Sharan to us in the Court.

In Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 104, generally described as 2G case, this Court considered the scope of Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(c) of the 2003 Act and Section 4(1) of the D.S.P.E. Act and observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:

A combined reading of the directions given by this Court in Vineet Narain's case (supra) and Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(e) of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the Central Vigilance Commission is required to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in matters relating to the investigation of offences allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or an offence with which a public servant specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 2003 Act is charged at the same trial and give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it u/s 4(1) of the 1946 Act. However, in view of proviso to Section 8(1)(b) of the 2003 Act the Central Vigilance Commission cannot, while exercising the power of superintendence under Clause (a) or giving directions under Clause (b), direct Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner. In other words, the power of superintendence cannot be used by the Central Vigilance Commission for interfering with the manner and method of investigation or consideration of any case by the C.B.I. in a particular manner.

Although, initially the C.B.I. may not have taken up the matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after 16.12.2010 it has satisfactorily conducted the investigation. Therefore, there is no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise the further investigation being conducted by the C.B.I. and other agencies. However, keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner appointed u/s 3(2) of the 2003 Act to render assistance to the Court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the case. This course will be perfectly in tune with the mandate of Section 8(1) of the 2003 Act.

Following above, in paragraph 13, the Court gave the following directions:

(i) In future copies of the report(s) of the investigation conducted by the C.B.I. and other agencies shall be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes.

(ii) Within next one week the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine the report(s) and send their observations/suggestions to this Court in sealed envelopes which shall be considered along with the report(s) of the C.B.I. and other investigating agencies.

Having regard to all aspects of the matter, particularly that the investigation into the allocation of coal blocks is conducted by the C.B.I. and being monitored by this Court and that there are matters where the Inquiry Officers have recommended regular cases to be filed on conclusion of preliminary enquiries but C.B.I. head office has ordered otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that if the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioners appointed u/s 3(2) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 are requested to render assistance to this Court, then that may facilitate this Court in effectively monitoring the investigation being conducted by C.B.I..

This also meets the accord of the C.B.I. and so also Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Learned Counsel for the Common Cause and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner in person.

We accordingly, direct that Mr. Ravi Kant, DIG, C.B.I. shall make available three copies of the compilation of the matters as on date where the Inquiry Officers recommended regular cases to be filed on conclusion of preliminary enquiries but C.B.I. head office had ordered otherwise, to the C.V.C. in a sealed cover within five days from today. The compilation/reports, so submitted by the C.B.I., shall be examined by the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioners (besides them none-else) and they shall send their observations/suggestions to this Court in three sealed covers within four weeks from the date of receipt of the above compilation/reports. After the observations/suggestions are received from the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioners in sealed covers, the same shall be placed before this Court for consideration along with the reports of the C.B.I.. We clarify that if there are queries by the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Senior Vigilance Commissioners in respect of the compilation/reports submitted by the C.B.I. and/or they require any material from the C.B.I., the same may be communicated to the C.B.I. and upon receipt of such communication, within three days the C.B.I. shall supply the material to C.V.C. as per requisition.

A note has been filed by C.B.I. through Mr. Ravi Kant, DIG in which it is stated that in compliance of the order dated 10.2.2014, the final report u/s 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed in 4 R.Cs. (2 chargesheeted and 2 closure reports) and as regards 2 R. Cs (R.C. 219 2012 E0008 dated 3.9.2012 and RC 219 2012 E0010 dated 3.9.2012) wherein closure has been recommended, it has been felt that further investigation is required on certain points and evidence is also required to be assessed afresh in light of the opinion of the Special Senior Counsel for the C.B.I.. It is, therefore, prayed that two weeks' further time would be required to complete the investigation in above referred 2 R.Cs.

As prayed, time is granted up to 15.4.2014 for completion of task in 2 R.Cs. (R.C. 219 2012 E0008 dated 3.9.2012 and RC 219 2012 E0010 dated 3.9.2012).

Both C.B.I. and E.D. shall submit the latest status reports of the affairs up to 30.4.2014 on or before 6.5.2014.

List this group of matters on 7.5.2014 at 2 P.M.

Crl. M.P. No. 4339 of 2014 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012:

Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Income Tax prays for withdrawal of Crl. M.P. No. 4339 of 2014 to enable the applicant to make fresh application. Crl. M.P. 4339 of 2014 is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed.