A legal case summary provided by the Supreme Court of India concerning an inquiry into the initial lapse and delay in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation vs R.S. Pai and Another. The Court has ordered an investigation to hold individuals accountable for the procedural error. The compliance report is expected to be filed within three months. #SupremeCourt #JusticePrevails
Facts
- The application to bring the authorisation on record was rejected based on procedural grounds of delay in submission.
- The trial judge wrongly relied on Section 362 of Cr.P.C. while rejecting the application.
- A fresh application under Section 173(2)(5)(a) Cr.P.C. was filed to rectify the error of not having the authorisation on record.
- The issue at hand was purely procedural in nature and did not pertain to the merits of the case.
- Reference was made to the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs R.S. Pai and another (2002) 5 SCC 82.
- The Inspector of Police, CBI, Vishakhapatnam, was aggrieved by the High Court’s dismissal of the prosecution’s application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to bring on record the authorisation for investigation.
- The prosecution had intended to file the authorisation along with the charge-sheet but due to inadvertence, it was missed.
- Multiple applications were filed to rectify the error, with the final one being dismissed on the grounds of lack of proper explanation for the delay.
- The truth and veracity of the authorisation were not in question, and the appeal was deemed necessary for the interests of justice.
- The criminal case against the Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, was based on allegations of disproportionate assets.
Also Read: Land Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Ruling on Specific Performance
Analysis
- The word ‘shall’ in sub-section (5) of Section 173 should be interpreted as directory, not mandatory.
- The appellant could have brought the omitted documents on record later under Section 173(2)(5)(a) of the Code.
- The failure to file the authorization order with the charge-sheet was a procedural lapse, not a substantive violation.
- The Special Court’s order disallowing the procedural lapse could not be sustained.
- The possibility of a deliberate omission to favor the accused cannot be entirely ruled out.
- The rejection of the application was for lack of explanation for the delay, not on merits.
- No specific prohibition exists on the prosecution to produce additional documents subsequently.
- A procedural lapse should not be equated with a substantive violation of the law.
- The High Court should have exercised its inherent powers to allow bringing the authorization order on record.
- The prosecution is allowed to bring the authorization order for investigation on record.
- If relevant documents are missed during charge-sheet submission, they can be produced with court permission.
- Substantive provisions defining crimes and providing punishment are different from procedural enactments for trial procedures.
- Rules of procedure are meant to advance justice and not obstruct it.
- Courts can expand meanings of procedural provisions to elicit truth and do justice.
- High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law.
- The degree of negligence should not prevent a suitor seeking justice from accessing the court.
- Procedural negligence leading to dismissal of substantive matters involves an element of negligence.
- Substantive justice should prevail over procedural or technical justice.
- Failure to explain delay in procedural matters should not operate as res judicata, especially in matters relating to corruption in public life.
- The rule of law and societal interest in subjecting alleged offenders to the laws of the land are essential in the larger public interest.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment: Setting Precedent for Contractual Compliance
Decision
- A senior officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation in Visakhapatnam has been directed to conduct an inquiry into the initial lapse and the delay in approaching the court.
- The inquiry will also investigate the nearly 5 years that passed after the rejection and the belated attempt in 2013.
- The report from the inquiry must fix responsibility and initiate disciplinary action against the individuals involved.
- The compliance report, along with the inquiry results and actions taken, is to be filed before the Court within three months.
Also Read: Bank Fraud Conspiracy Conviction Upheld: Original Name 1 and Original Name 2 Appeals Dismissed
Case Title: STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. M SUBRAHMANYAM
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000853-000853 / 2019
