STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. v. J.A.C. SALDANHA AND ORS.

A c 16 STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA AND ORS. _November_ 13, 1979 fR. S. SARKARL.\, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHJNN\I'PA REDDY, JJ.] _Investigation by Police-Further investigation_ _in_ _case in which one investf._ patin~, _of(:'ccr_ _bud_ _sul;n1ittnl_ _a final_ _r·cpon_ _under section_ 172(2) _of_ _Crilninal_ _Procedure Code,_ 1973, _but on which the Court had not passed any_ _order-_ _Whether the State Government_ _is_ _precluded from directing further investigation_ _in_ _1/ic_ _case-Sections_ 2(h), 2(r), 36 156(1) _and_ (2) _and_ 193(8) _of_ _the Crimi-_ _nal Procedure Code,_ 1973 _r /w_ _Sectz'ons_ 1, 3, 12 _and_ 22 _of_ _the Indian_ _Police_ _Act,_ _1861-Wherher_ _E.G._ _of_ _Police Vigilance, a_ ~superior" _officer in rank for_ _the purpose_ _of section_ 36 _of_ _the_ _Code-Power_ _of_ _Magistrate under_ _s._ 156 _of_ _the Code._ D _Words and pfi..-ases-"superintendcnce"_ _in_ _11:ctio11_ 3 _of_ _Indian Police Act,_ 1861, _meaning_ _of._ _f_ E F G H _Investigation-Court's duty in interfering_ _in_ _a Criminal matter at the stage_ _of_ _h1vestigation._ A First Information Report alleging loss of legitimate revenues due .to the railway by defrauding it with the connivance of railway officials either by loading pearl coke without being booked according to railway rules in the empty wagons after the man_ganese ore in them were unloaded at Adityapur in Tatanagar, a railway siding of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. or by diverting \vithout regular booking of tanks containing furnace oil. was lodged on March 11, 1977, consequent upon which a case was registered at Tatanagar G.R.P.S. disclosing offences under sections 420/120B, 418 and 368 Indian Penal Code and sections 105 /106 of the Indian Railways Act, against 9 persons. One S. R. I. Rizvi. Inspector of Railway Police, S. E. Railway Tatanagar con1menced investigation into the offences under the general supervision of R. P. Singh S.P. Railway Police appellant in Cr!. Appeal No. 300 /79 and Respondent 6 in Cr!. Appeal No. 301 _f79._ The D.I.G. Railway Police who was the immediate superior of Respondent 6, wrote a letter to the D.l.G., C.l.D., Bihar on May _11,_ !977 requesting him to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of investigation. but the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, as per his letter dated June 24, 1977, declined the request. In the meantime on June 16, 1977 on a complaint from one Mr. Rusi 1\..Iodi representative of TISCO, at Patna· to the Chief Secretary to the Government a1leging harassment of TISCO officials by respondent 6 and requesting for appropriate steps, the cabinet took the decision to transfer respondent 6. One Sbri R. H. Modi who was required to appear before the Investigating Officer, made some enquiry by his Jetter dated '!'Iovi;-mber 4 1977 which was copied to some higher police officers including Respondent 2, Inspector General of Police, Bihar, acting on the copy of that letter requested Respondent 3, Add!. I.G., C.I.D. to look into the com~laint of ' BIHAR _V._ J.A.C. SALDANHA 17 ' Mr. 1\-Iodi. The third respondent sent a telegraphic communication to RespoQ- A dent. 6 informing him that the investigation of the aforesaid offences had been taken over by the c·J.D. . The Com1nissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranchi, on a request made by the Secretary to Government of Bihar (Home) Police departn1cnt enquired into the · allegations made by officers of TISCO dgainst respOndent 6 and, after consultations with D.l.G .. Railway, the irnrr1et.Iiate su.perior of Respondent 6 submitted his report dated December 27, i977 giving a clean chit to Respondent 6. In the meantime, there was another appli- B cation from M.L.As and M.L.Cs seven in all addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Vigilance, Bibar making serious a.llegations against the inves~igation made by the C.I.D. under the supervision of respondent - 3, whereupon the Chief' Secretary to Government of Bihar submitted a note to the Chief f\.Iinister on August 28, 1978 suggesting that the case involved in the matter be handed Over _to_ the CBI for illquiry. This note Was approved and signed by the Chief _j_ ~finister on the same day. In the meantime, the Chief Secretary by his letter C dated September 2, 1978 directed respondent 3 to send all papers of the case with a note indicating the stage of investigation. to him and in compliance there~ \\'ith respondent 3 sent all papers of investigation till then done ·to the Chief Secretary with his covering letter dated September II, 1978. The CBI declined to undertake the investigation and suggested that the Inspector General, Vigilance Department may be asked to conduct the investigation. The recommendation made accordingly by the Chief Secretary on February 8, 1979 was accepted D by the 'Chief Minister on February 27, 1979. In·between -on January 18, 1979, even though the papers were still with the· Chief Secretary respondent 3 directed the investigating office·r respondent 4 to submit the final report. When .the Chief Secretary came to know about it he wrote· to respondent 2 deprecating the conduct of respondent 3 in pushing through the matter, though the papers were not with him and he was orally instructed not to submit the final report. As undef the direction and orders of respondent 3, respondent 4 had already E submitted final report on February 6, 1979, a communication was addressed to respondent _5._ ' Superintendent of Railway Police who had taken over charge from respondent 6 to move the court not to accept the final report and await report of, Police after completion of the further investigation which was directed by the Government in the case. The matter was placed before th\'.'! Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate on February 24, 1979 along with report of the Assistaint Public Prosecutor not to ac.cept the final report of "no case" filed by F respondent 4, whereupon the learned Magistrate passed an order to await report on further investigation and adjourned the matter to 23~3-1979 for further orders. On March _5,_ 1979, J. A. C. Saldanha respondent I and one of the officials named in the First Information Report filed a Writ Petition in the ITigh Court questie•ing the validity, legality and correctness of the· order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.. A full Bench of the High Court by its Judgment dated May 14, 1979 quashed the order _inter alia_ holding that the direction give• by the Chief Secretary with the concurrence of the Chief Minister for handim: over investigation of the case to the Inspector General Vigilance WilS iUegal in as much as the I.G., Vigilance could not be entrusted in law with the investi,eation of the case registered with the railway police and consequently the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error in postponing the cons~dcration of the .final report already submitted by respondent 4 till such unauth.orisal investigation was completed. _I_ G H Y ###### Sf A 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.R. Allowing the appeal by the State, the Court HELD: 1. A combined reading of sections 2(h), 2(r), 36, 156 and 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with sections 1, 3, 12, and 22 of Indian Poiice Act, 1861 would indicate that the State Government was not precluded from directing further investigation in the case in which one investi _>:';-_ gating officer had submitted his 'final report' under section 173 (2) of the Code, B but on which the Court had not passed any order. Section 156 en~bles the officer incharge of a Police Station to investigate without the order of a Mag:strate into a cognizable case committed within the area of the police st.1.tion. Under section 36 police· officers superior in rank to an officer in cha-rge of a. police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. Section 173(8) enables an officer-in-charge of the Police Station C to undertake for their investigation in a. case \Vh(:re be has already sub1nitte<l _ii_ report under sub-section (2) of section 173 and if in course of such further investigation he collects additional oral or documentary evidence, he has to forward the same in the prescribed form to the l\lagistrate. [27 G, 28 A, C-D, 32 GJ D E F G 2. The officer directed by the State Government to carry on the inve'itigation is Inspector General Vigilance. He is und~ubtedly an ofticer superior in rank, n1ay not be departmentwise administrative hierarchy, to an officer in charge Of police station. _Inter_ _se_ departmental division such as Inspector General of Police or Inspector General Vigilance, or Additional Inspector General C.l.D. n1ay be merely a division of work for administra<tive efficiqicy but the Inspector General of Police cnnld not by any stretch of imaglnation be said not to be an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of :i police st::ttion. [28 D-F] Rule 7(a) of the Bihar Police Manual provides that the police force of the entire State is under the overall charge of Inspector General of Police and for the help of Inspector General and for the convenience of carrying out the work ccnnected with the different branches of police administration, Deputy Inspector· General and Assistant Inspector-General of the rank of Superintendent are post~d at headquarters. The use of the word 'rank' in s. 36 of the Code comprehends the hierarchy of police officers. It is equally clear that Inspector General of Police will. have jurisdiction over the whole of the State. Division of work, but not demarcating any local area indicates that Inspector General, Vigilance, \\'ill have jurisdiction extending over the whole of the State and this equally becomes c!~1.r from the Notification dated June 6, 1973. ismed by the State Government in exercise of the power under clause (s) of sub-section (1) of s. 4 of the 1908 Code declaring that in respect of certai• oITencCs the Vigilance Department shall be deemed to ba· a police station having its jurisdiction throughout the whole State of Bihar. Even apart from this, Inspector General appointed by the State Government has jurisdiction over the whole of the State unless the contrary is indicated. If he is thus an officer superior in · rank _to_ an officer in charge of a police station he could in view of s. 36 exercise the po.vers of an officer in charge of a police station throughout tlie local area to which he was appointed meaning thereby the \.\.·hole of Bihar State as might be exercised by an officer in chagre of a polici.:- station within the limits of his police station. It was to him that the investigation of the case was ordered to be handed over by the State Government. [28 G-H, 29 A-41 1 _J B!HAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _R._ _P._ _Kapoor_ _and_ _Ors._ v. _Sardar_ _Parlap_ _Singh_ _Kairon and 01 ..,_ [1961) 2 _i\_ SCR 143 at 153-154; applied. 3. The State of Bihar is governed by the Indian Police Act, 1861. . .<\. com· bined reading of sections 1, 3, 12 and 22 of the 1).ct makes it clear that (a) investigation comprehends detection of crime; (b) General pc;lice district covers the entire State and ( c) the superintendence of the police throughout a general-police district shall vest in and shall be exercised by the State Govern- B ment to which such district i's subordinate. ID.spector General, Vigil;tri.ce ·being appointed for the whole of the State, is a police officer considered to be on ,duty for all purposes of the Act and it is open to the State Government to employ him as polite officer in iny part of the general district. [29 F, 30 A-C.] 4. The general power of superintendence as conferred by section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 would comprehend the power to exercise effec;tive control C over the actions performance and discharge of duties by the members of the police force throughout the general district. The word 'superintendence' "Would imply administrative control enabling the authority enjoying such power to give directions to the subordinate to discharge its administrative duties and functions in the manner indicated· in the order. It is only when a subordinate authority subject to superintendence· is discharging duties and functions of a· quasi-judicial character under a statute that the inhibition of abdication ef D such power can be invoked. But where the subordinate subject to such power of supedntendence of the superior is discharging admini.strative ~nd executive function, obligations and duties the power of .superintendence would comprehend the authority to give directions to perform the duty in a certain manner, Jo refrain from performing one of the other duty, to direct some one else to perform the duty and no inhibition or limitation can be read in thiS power unless the section conferring such power prescribes one. Such is the scope anP E ambit of power conferred by s. 3 on the State Government of superintendence over the entire police force of the State. [30 E-Hl _Makeshwar Nath Srivastava_ v. _State_ _of_ _Bihar_ & _Ors._ [1971] 3 S.C.R. 863 followed. _S._ Unless the power is limited or fettered or taken away by some specific p provision to the contrary, the general power of superintendence would comprehend power to issue directions, orders for performance of duty in a ce~ain manner, directing some; one ·else to discharge certain function, refrain from performing 1 certain duty, etc. Superintendence· connotes supervision which implies a hierarchy, viz. supervisor and the one supervised. It \Vould, therefore, mean keeping a check, watch over the work of another who may be a subordinate in a hierarchy of authority. It would also comprehend that super- G vision is not merely a negative thing so as to keep a watch but it would imply giving of direction, guidance, even instructions, ?-nd in a given case and in a given situation asking one who is being supervised to forbear from doing a thing and directing someone else to do that thing. [31 G-H, 32 A-B] _Rajkumar_ v. _Ramsundar_ AI.R. 1932 P.C. 69, referred to. 6. Superintendence would comprehend the power to direct further investigation if the circumstances so warrant. There is nothing in the police Act to indicate the nanow construction of the word "superiniendence" in section 3 to H 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. A mean 'general supervision' of t~e managen1ent of the police Ucpart1nent and does not vest lh::: State Government with authority to decid·.:: what the police alone is authorised to dec:Je'. {32 D·EJ 7. 'Sub·section (8) of section 173 of the Code is not the source of power of the State Government to direct further investigation. Section 173(8) enables an officer in charge of a police station to carry on further investigation even B after a report under s. 173(2) is submitted to Court. But if Slate Government has othcn.vise power to direct further investigation it is neither curtailed, limited nor denied by s. 173(8) IT:llrC so, \Vhcn th~ State Govcrnmi:nt J1ncts an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of police staticin thereby enjoying all powers ot an officer in charge of a police station to further investigate the case. Such a ~itnation would be CC\ered by the com.bi11_ed r~ading of.;. 173(8) \vith c D E F G II s.' 36 of the Code. [32 F-I-f, 33,\] _r_ 8. There is no warrant or invoking the principle, namely "if a statute directs a thing to be done in a certain ·way that thing shall not, even if there be no negative \Von.ls be done in :1ny other way" because section 5 of the code "j'lrovides that nothing in the code shall, in the. absence of a specific provision to the contrary. affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. Section 3 of the Police Act does not prescribe any special procedure for investigation contrary to one prescribed in the Code. It merely provides for conferment of certain rower \Vhich. \\'hen exercised, v;ould project into the provisions of the Code which confers power on the officer in charge of a police sta·tion 1 [to ] carry on further investigation under s. 173(8) after submission of a report ahd that too without any permission of the Magistrate. There is no conflict between the two provisions. Power to direct investigation ·or further investigation is entirely different from the method and procedure. of investigation and the competence of the person to investigate. Section 3 of the Act dea1s with the rowers of the State Government to direct further investigation into the case. Undoubtedly, such direction will be given to a person competent to investigate the offence and tLe police officer in rank superior to the police officer in charge of the police station, Inspector General, Vigilance, has been directed to carry on further investigation. An Officer superior to rank to an officer-in-charge of a police station could as well exercise the power of further investigation under s. 173(8) in viev.· of the provision embodied in s. 36 of the Code. If that be so, such superior officer could as well undertake further investigation on his own and it is immaterial and irrelevant that he does it at the instance or on the direction. of the State Government. Such a dire'ction in no way corrodes his po\vcr to further investigate on his own. [33 G-H, 34 .i\.-D] _State_ _of_ _Gujarat_ v. _Shanti/al Mangaldas and Ors._ [1969] 3 SCR 341 at 372, ex-parte Stephens [1876] Ch.D., _659_ and _Patna_ _ln1proven1c11t_ _Trust_ v. _Snit._ _Lakshmi_ _Devi and Ors.,_ [1963] Suppl 2 SCR 812; referred to. 9. The power of the 1\-Iagistrate under s. 156(3) to direct further investiga· tion is clearly an independent power and does not stand in conflict with the pO¥/er of the Sratc Government. The power conferred upon the }.,fagistrate under s. 156(3) can be exercised by the Magistrate even after submission of a report by the investigating officer which would mean that it would be open to the Magistrate not to accept the conclusion of the investigating omcer and direct BIHAR 1'. J.A.C. SALDANHA 21 fUrther investigation. This provision does not in any way affect the power of A the investigating officer to further investigate the case and even after subn1ission of the report as provided in s. 173 (8). Therefore, the High Court was in error in holding that the State Government in exercise of the power of superintendence under s. 3 of the Act lacked the power _):o_ direct further investigation into the case. [34 E-F] 10. The contention that the action of the Chief Secretary in suggesting that B the investigation be taken over by the C.B.L and the acceptance of the same by the Chief Minister Sllffered from legal malice in as much as both had no jurisdiction, authority or power to make such an order to transfer investigation or to direct further investigation when a report was already submitted by the investigating officer to the Court competent to take cognizance of the case is not correct. [3 8 B~C] - If the Chief Secre\ary as the highest executive officer at the State level C exercising power of superintendence over the police of the State posted in general police district would have powers to suggest change of investigating machinery ill the circumstances disclosed in the letter dated May 11, 1977, of the D.I.G., Railway, the report of the Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Division, a-nd the complaint of MI ... As./MLCs., his action cou1d not be said to be withont power or authority. If he had acted otherwise, a charge of inaction D or failure or default in performance of his duty as tbe highest chief executive officer would be squarely laid at his door. He acted in the best tradition of the Chief .executive officer in public interest and for vindication of truth and in an honest and unbiased manner. Afterall, if he had even the remotest bias against any one, he could have as well suggested in agreement with the earlier investigation done by respondent 6 and the report submitted by him for submitting the charge-sheet that a charge-s·heet should be filed. In fact, the Chief E Secretary with utmost candour, with a view to vindicating the hono~ of the administration, proposed ascertainment of triith at the hands of CBI, a body beyond reproach as far as local politics is concerned, and that is unchallengeable. [38 F-H, 39 A-Bl 11. The Police officers should refrain from addressing communications to the Courts on pending n1atter.: required· tO be determined judicially. In the instant case, though the conduct of the Superintendent of Police, in informing the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate about the decision of the Government to continue the investigation, by the letter dated February 15, 1979 is not proper. it makes no difference in the matter because:' the Magistrate acted not on that letter, but on an application made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of 11\e case, and that is the legally accepted mode of obtaining a judicial order. [39 C-E] 12. The power of the Police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the Judiciary. There is a clear cut and ;well den1arcated sphere of activity ·in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusiveJy reserved for the executive through tho police department, the superintendence over Which vests in the State Government. The, executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigil:mce over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigate• and finds F G H 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19811] _1_ S.C.R. A an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed,and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under s. 190 of the Ccxte its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the. Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in s. 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine \vhcther an B offence has been committed and if so-, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to av. [1] ard adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the Satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police ~nd the Magistrate. [39·G-H. 40 A-D] C _Kin;.:_ En1p~ror v. _Khwaja_ _AJ11nad,_ [1944] L.R. 71 I.A. 203 z..t 213; followed. 13. Court should be quite loathe to interfere at the stage of investi:ation, a field of. activity reserved for Police and the executive. In· the instant case, the High Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by ·making observations on seriously disputed questions of fact~ tatia.g its cue from affidavits which in such a situation would hardly pr&vide any reliable D materi"al. The Hi:h Court was clearly in error in giving the direction virtually a·mouRting: f'o a. _nu1ndamus_ to c!me the case before. the investiiation is complete., The Hi:h Court virtually h~ usurped the jurisdiction of tke Ma:istrate. The casei i~ not a :.ta~~ where the Court is called up to quash the proceeding as dis~ closi•:: n@ offence, ltY.t the case. is at a ~tar;e where furtl.er iavesti::ati•a into the tttfcnce is sou::ht te be thwarted by interference Jn exercise of the extra ordinary juri"ldiction. [41 B-D, 42 F-H] E _S._ lV. _Sharnu1_ v. _lrisluiln_ _1_ _Kun1ar Tiwari,_ [1'7~] 3 SCR. _'4€9;_ applici. 14. If an informatiea. is lodged at the Police station ani au o:!'ience i! registered, the _mala fiies_ of the informant would be of seco:atiary importaace if the investigation prOOuces unimpeachable evidence disciosiRg tile evidence. [43 D·El F [The Court directei the rtlle~ations of _n11tla_ _fide_ made a:-ainst J{espo1ulent 6 be expunged for tile· purpose of t~is appeal.] _Ob8ervation_ 15. In Parlia11te•tary democr<1.cy elected representatives kave a duty to perform and their vi:ilas.ce in performance of duty without anytRing shewn as unbecoming of them caanot he unilaterally _chastised._ [38 A] CRIMINAt APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal App~al Nos. 301 and 300 of 1979. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14-5-1979 of the Patna High Court in Writ Jurisdiction Case No. H 12/79. _Lal_ _Narain_ _Sinha, Ram Amugn,h_ _Prasad_ and _U.l'._ _Singh_ for the Appellants in Cr!. A. No. 301/79. .. BIHAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ '1.) 23 _Basudeo Prasad_ and _R._ _P._ _Singh_ for the Appellant in Cr!. A. **A** 300/79. _A._ _K_ _Se11,_ _Y._ S. _Chitale,_ _J._ _B._ _Dadacha11ji,_ _S._ _B._ _Sanyal,_ _N._ C. _Ganguli,_ _S._ _Warup,_ _J._ S. _Sinha_ and _K._ _J._ _John_ for Respondent No. 1 in bod1 the appeals. _Prabh"· Shwikar Mishra_ and _B._ _P._ _Singh_ for Ilespondcnt Nos. 2-3 in both the appeals . _M._ _P._ _Jha_ for Respondent No. 4 in both the appeais. _R. K ._ _.laiu_ for Respondent No. 7 in Cr!. A. 301/79 and Respondent _No. 6 in Crl. A. No. 300/79. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J.--Reverence and anxiety to the same degree, if not more, to shoot at eight even a remote intrusion into the field preserved for judiciary must inform the judicial approach whenever assistance of the judicial machinery is sought for an unwarranted encroachment into the field of activity reserved for the other branch of Goverament, more so, when extraordinary flOWer conferred 011. tlte High Court to issue prerogative writ in aid of justice is invoked to thwart a possible detection **of** **a suspected offence. How dan:;erous** **it** **is** **to** **rush** **in-** **where one** should be wary to tread is amply demonstrated by the facts revealed in these two apf'Oals. Factual matrix will highlight the situation. Though the point can-vassetl centres round the limit of jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation of an offence registered at **a** police station, to pin-point the contention, rdevant facts may be stated with circumspection, as the -case is _suhjwiia_ because any overt or covert expression of opinion on **B** c **D** E the facts i11 cm1troversy awaiting adjudication may be censured as: judi- **F** Cial impropriety. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., ('TISCO' for short), has a railway siding at Adityapur **ia** Tatanagar. **A** ferro Manganese Plant has been ·set Ufl by TlSCO at fada, for which tfue nearest railway head is Banaspani i• Orissa. TISCO has its iro11. ore and manganese mines at **G** Naomundi. Ore is beia~ transported from Banaspani and Naomundi ·to Tatana:ar, oielivery point bein: railway yard at Adityapur. Thr; allegation is that some of the emrty wa:;ons after ore was delivered at Adityapur Railway Station Yard on the return journey to Banaspani/Naomundi -were loaded with pearl coke without being ·booked accord in: to railway rules and without the issuance of railway **H** receipts with the connivance of the local railway officials and the rail-way was defrauded of its legitimate revenue. It was also alieged that **A** **B** **c** **D** **E** **F** **G** II 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R. some tanks containing furnace oil were diverted without 1egular book. ing .which also resulted in deprivation of the legitimate revenue to the Railway. Adityapur railway yard was not, according to the railway **administration, a bOoking** **station** **and** **hence no booking** **staff** **was** posted there and, therefore, wagons could not have been booked from Adityapur railway yard and there was considerable variation in the **nun1ber** **of** **\Vagons** **booked** **fron1** **Tatanagar** **and** **received** **at** **Banaspani** as set out in first information report. On these allegations a first in· formation report was lodged on March 11, 1977, consequent upon which an offence was registered at Tatanagar G.R.P.S. under sections 420/120-B, 418 and 368, Indian Penal Code, and ss. 105/106 of the Indian Railways Act against 9 persons. One S.R.I. Rizwi, Inspector Railway Police, S.E. Railway, Tatanagar, commenccJ investigation into the offence under the general supervision of R.P. Singh, Superintendent, Railway Police, respondent 6 in Criminal Apocal No. 301 of 1979 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 300/79). Ordinarily, the investigation would proceed in a traditionally routine manner by the police machinery but it has taken none-too-commendable zig-zag course because of the personalities involved in the case and which should have been the most irrelevant factor to influence the decisions of various persons involved in these appeals. It appears that . the D.I.G., Railway Police who was the immediate superior of respondent 6, wrot.e a letter to the then D.I.G., C.I.D. Bihar, on May 11, 1977 re· questing him to entrust the investigation of the aforementioned offences to Central Bureau of Investigation but the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, as per his letter dated June 24, 1977, declined the request. In the mean time one Shri Rusi Modi, resident representative of TISCO at Patna appears to have written a personal letter to Shri Saran Singh, the then Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar, complaining about the harassment suffered by the officers of TISCO pursuant to the investigation carried on by railway police under the supervision ef respondent 6 and requesting him to take whatever steps the Chief Secretary considered appropriate to curb the enthusiasm of respondeat 6 in carrying on the investigation of the offences. It appears from the reply affidavit filed by M. **J.** Basha, an officer of TISCO, that on June 16, 1977, the very day the resident representative handed over his letter to the Chief Secretary, Cabinet took the decision to transfer respondent 6. It is necessary to refer to this fact to evaluate a submission that even though respondent 6 was transferred he directed a charge-sheet to be submitted despite the fact that the investigation was incomplete and that this conduct would provide demonstrable proof of his malice and _mala fides._ It appears that one Shri R. H. Modi who was required by the investigating officer to appear before liim made some enquiry by _**.1**_ ._,. _,r_ _(_ ,,_ ' BIHAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ J.) 25 his letter dated November 4, 1977, which appears to have been copied to some higher police officers and in the margin of this letter there is an endorsement by respohdent 2, Inspector General of Police, Bihar requesting respondent 3, Addi. LG., C.l.D., to look into the complaint made by Mr. Modi. Immediately thereupon the third respondent sent a telegraphic communication to respondent 6 informing him that the investigation of the aforementioned offence has been taken over by the C.I.D. It appears that on a request made by the Secretary to Govern· ment of Bihar (Home) Police Department, the Commission, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranchi, enquired into the alleg:itions made by officers of TISCO against respondent 6 and after consultations with DJ.G., Rallway, the immediate superior of respondent 6, and submitted his report dated December 27, 1977, in which it is stated that there was no ulterior motive on the part of respondent 6 in instituting a c"ase and that there was "material strong enough to institute a case and taking up the investigation and that it could not be said that the case was instituted in order to harass the TISCO management". The Government of Bihar appears to have recieved an application signed by MLAs. and MLCs., 7 in all, addressed to Inspector General of Police, Vigllance, Bihar, making serions allegations against the investigation done under the supervision of respondent 3 and suspecting a foul play possibly with a view to covering up the case and requested . the Government to get the investigation done through LG., Vigilance. Such a complaint appears to have been made to the then Prime Minister of India as also some question appears to have been asked in Parliament. The then Chief Secretary submitted a note to the Chief Minister on August 28, 1978, with reference to the letter of the MLAs.jMLCs. snggesting that the case involved in the matter be handed over to the C.B.I. for enquiry. Approving this note and suggestion, the then Chief Minister signed the note on the same day. IJ:i the mean lime Chief Secretary on September 2, 1978, directed respondent 3 to send all papers of the case with a note indicating the stage of investigation to him and in compliance therewith respondent 3 sent all papers of investigation till then done to the Chief Secretary under his covering letter dated September 11, 1978. C.B.I. by its letter dated January 30, 1979, declined to undertake the investigation and suggested that the Inspector General, Vlgfilance Department, may be asked to conduct the investi· gation. The Chief Secretary thereafter submitted a further .note to the Chief Minister on February 8, 1979, stating therein 'hat the C.B.I. is not in a position to take up the investigation and that the I.G., Vigilance, is recommended for investigation and, therefore, ihe Chief Minister was requested to pass an appropriate order directin• I.G. Vigilance to get the case investigated by the Vigilance Depa"rtmen; A B c D E F G II 3-868SCI/79 ' A B c D E F G II 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ l 9 80] 2 S.C.R. under his personal control. This recommendation was accepted by the Chief Minister on February 27, 1979. In between, on January 18, 1979, even though the papers were still with the Chief Secretary, respondent 3 directed the investigating offi= respondent 4 to submit the final report. When the Chief Secretary came to know abou: it he wrote to respondent 2 deprecating the conduct of respondent 3 in pushing through the matter though the papers were not with him and he was orally instructed not to submit the final report. As under the direction and orders of respondent 3, respondent 4 had already submitted the final report on February 6, 1979, a communication was addressed to respondent _5,_ Superintendent, Railway Police, one Mr. Mohammad Sulaiman, who had taken over in the mean time from respondent 6 who was transferred, to move the Court not to accept the final report and await report of the police after completion of the further investigation which was directed by the Government in the case. The matter was placed before the Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate on February 24, 1979, along with report of the Asst!. Public Prosecutor not to accept the final report as hereinabove stated whercupcn the learned Magistrate passed the following order : "After hearing both the parties, I consider it proper to await report on further investigation. Therefore, put up on 23-3-1979 for further orders awaiting report on further **investigation".** On March 5, 1979, J.A.C. Saldanha, original petitioner (respondent 1) filed a petition in the High Court questioning the validity, legality and correctness of the order of the Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate. A full bench c;f the High Court by its judgment dated May 14, 1979, quashed the order, _inter alia,_ holding that the direction given by the Chief Secretary with the concurrence of the Chief Minister for taking over investigation of the case by the Inspector-General, Vigilanc was illegal inasmuch as the I.G., Vigilance could not be entrusted in law with the investigation of the case registered with the raliway police and consequently the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error in postponing consideration of the final report already submitted by the fourth respondent till such unauthorised investigation was completed. The High Court gave various directions to the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate how to dispose of the case. Two appeals have been preferred by special leave, one by the State of Bihar, and the other by original respondent 7 (respondent 6 herein), the then Superintendent of Police, Railway. Bl!IAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ _!.)_ 27 .; Two substantial questions arise in these appeals: (la). Whether the State Government was competent to direct further investigation in a criminal case in which a report was submitted by the investigating agency under s. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short) to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the cru;e ? (lb). Whether the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case committed an illegality in postponing consideration of the report submitted to him upon a request made by Asstt. Public Prosecutor in charge of the case till report on completion of further investigation directed by the State Govermnent was submitted to him; and (2) whether, when the investigation was in progress the High Court was justified in interfering with the investigation and prohibiting or precluding further investigation in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution ? 'Investigation' is defined in s. 2(h) of the Code to include all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authcrfaed by a Magistrate in this behalf. 'Police report' is defined in s. 2(r) to mean a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-s. (2) of s. 173. Chapter XII deals with investigation of a cogmzable case. Section 156(1) and (2) are relNant and may be extracted : "156(1) Any officer in charge of a 'police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investig:ite any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. _ (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate". Section 36 confers power of an officer in charge of a police station on all police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police ~tation. It reads as under : "36. Police officers superior in rank.to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to whlch they are appointed, as may be ex~rcised by such officer within the limits of his station". Section 173 provides for submission of a report by an officer in charge of a police station on completion of the investigation, to the A B c D _E_ F G H A 8 D 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. Magistrate empow&ed to take cognizance of the offence. Sul:>-s. (8) 'of s. 173 is material. It reads as under : "173(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preciude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Mdgistrate and, whereupon such investigation, the officer in cirnrgc 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 prescnbr-0; 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)". The fim question is whether the State Government was precluded from directing further investigation in the case in which one investigat ing officer had submitted a report under s. 173(2) of the Code but on which the Court had not passed any order ? Section 156 enables the officer in charge of a police station to investigate without the order of a Magistrate into a cognizable case commilted within the area of the police station. The officer directed by the State Government to cany on the investigation is Inspector-General, Vigilance. He is undoubtedly an officer £ superior in rank, if not in departmentwise administrative hierarchy, to an officer in charge of a police station. _Inter ;e_ departmental division such as Inspector-General of Police or Inspector-General, Vigilance, or Additional Inspector-General, C.I.D. may be merely a division of work for administrative efficiency, but the Inspector-General of Police could not by any stretch of imagination be said not to be an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. While interpreting s. 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 ('1908 Code' for short), which was in _pori materia_ with s. 36 of the Code, this Court in _R._ _P._ _Kapoor_ & _Ors._ v. _Sardar Partap Singh_ _Kairon_ & _Ors.,(')_ observed that the Addi. Inspector-General of G II Police was, without doubt, a police officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. Rule 7 (a) of the Bihar Police Manual provides that the police force of the entire State is under the overall charge of Inspector-General of Police and for the help of InspectorGeneral and for the convenience of carrying out the work connected with the different branches of police administration, Deputy InspectorGeneral and Assistant Inspectors-General of the rank of Superintendent are posted at headquarters. The use of the word 'rank' in s. 36 . ' . (1) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 143 at 153,154. A c D r G H BIHAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai, 1.)_ 29 of the Code comprehends the hierarchy of police officers. It is equaJly cl.ear that Inspector-General of Police will have jurisdiction over the whole cf the State. Division of work, but not demarcating any local area indicates that Inspector-General, Vigilance, will have jurisdiction extending over the whole of the State and this equally becomes clear from the Notification dated June 6, 1973,. issued by the State Government in exercise of the power under clause (s) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the 1908 Code declaring that in respect of certain offiences tho Vigilance Department shall be deemed to be a police station having its jurisdiction throughout the whole State of Bihar. Even apart from this, Inspector-General appointed by the State Government has jurisdiction over the whole of the State unless the contrary is indicated. If he is thus an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station he could in view of s. 36 exercise the powers of an officer in charge of a police station throughout the local area to which he was appointed meaning thereby the whole of Bihar State as might be exercised by an officer in charge of a police station within the limits of his police station. It· was to him that the investigation of the case was ordered to be handed over by the State Government. It was, however, contended that State Government has no power to direct further investigation, that being the power of the officer in charge of a police station under sub-s. (8) of s. 173 of the' Code, or the power of the Magistrate to direct further investigation under sub-s. (3) of s. 156, and, therefore, the State Government under orders of the Chief Minister was not competent to direct further investigation in the case. The State of Bihar is governed by the Indian Police Act, 1861, ('Act' for short), because it has not enacted any Police Act of its own. In s. 1 of the Act the word 'Police' is defined to include all persoDJ who shall be enrolled under the Act and the words 'general police district' are defined to embrace any presidency, State or place, or any part of any presidency, State or place, in which the Act shall be ordered to take effect. Section 3 of the Indian Police Act provides as under : "3. The superintendence of the police throughout a general police-district shall vest in and, shall be exercised by the State Government to which such district is subordinate; and except as authorised under the provisions of this Act, no person, officer or Court shall be empowered by the State Government to supersede or control any police functionary". ''" Section 12 confers power on the Inspector-General of Police, subjCol to the approval of the State Government, to make rules and it was A B c D F G H 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 2 S.C.R. stated that the Bihar Police Manual, 1978, has been issued in exercise of the power conferred by s. 12. Section 22 provides that every police officer shall, for all purposes in the Act contained, be considered to be always on duty, and may at any time be employed as a police officer in any part of the general police-district. The Act, as its long title· shows, was enacted to re-organise the police and _io_ make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime. Investigation comprehends detection of the crime. General police-district covers the entire State. Inspector-General, Vigilance, being appointed for the whole of the State, is a police officer considered to be oli duty for all purposes of the Act in the whole of the State and it is open to the State Government to employ him as police officer in any part of the general district. This would effectively answer the contention of respondent 1 that Inspector-General, Vigilan~, being o"nly in charge of bribery and corruption cases, could not be directoo by the State Government in exercise of its executive administrative function to take over investigation of a cognizable offence registered at railway police station because when he was directed to take over the inv~stigation it would mean that he was employed as a police officer in that police station for the detection of the crime. However, even apart from this, what is the scope, content and ambit of the power of general snperintendence conferred on the State Government over the police throughont the general police-district meaning thereby the whole State ? The general power of superintendence as conferred by s. 3 would comprehend the power to exercise effective control over the actions, performance and discharge of duties by the members of the police force throughout the general district. The word 'superintendence' would imply administrative control enabling the authority enjoying such power to give directions to the subordinate to discharge its administrative duties and functions in the manner indicated in the order. It is only when a subordinate authority subject to superintendence is dischargiug duties and functions of a quasi-judicial character under a stB.tute that the inhibition of abdication of such power can be invoked. But where the subordinate subject to such ·power of superintendence of the superior is discharging administrative and executive functions, obligations and duties, the power of superintendence would comprehend the authority to give directions to perfo1m the duty in a certain manner, to refrain from performing one or the other duty, to direct some one else to perform the duty and no inhibition or limitation can be read in this power unless the section conferring such power prescribes one. ·such is the scope and ambit of power conferred by s. 3 on the State Government of superintendence over the entire police force of the _1_ Dil!AR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ _!.)_ 31 State. This is borne out by a decision of this Court in _Makeshwa1•_ _Nath Srivastava_ v. _State_ _of Bihar_ & _Ors._ (I). In that case upon a dis ciplinary inquiry an Inspector of Police was served a notice by the Inspector-General of Police, Bihar, to show cause why he should not be dismissed. After taking into consideration the representation of the delinquent, the LG. Police, Bihar, passed order dated September 30, 1958, exonerating the delinquent of all the charges held proved against him by the inquiry officer. But on an entirely untenable extraneous ground he directed reversion of the delinquent from the post of Inspector of Police to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The delinquent preferred an appeal to the Government which was dis missed and the delinquent filed a writ petition .in the High Court, Patna, which was allowed with a direction that the appeal of the delinquent be heard by the Government over again. The State Government thereupon issued notice under rules 851(b) and 853A of the Biliar and Orissa Police Manual, 1930, to the delinquent calling upon him to show cause why he should 11ot be dismissed from service and ultimately the delinquent was dismissed by the State Government. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed _i11_ _limine_ by the High Court. In appeal to this Court by the delinquent, the order of the State Government was sought to be sustained on behalf of the State Government by contending that under its general power of superintendence conferred by s. 3 of the Police Act it would be open to pass an order of dismissal even in an appeal preferred by the delinquent against his reversion to the subordinate post by the LG. Police. Setting aside this order of dismissal by the State Government this Court held that as rule 85l(b) provides for appeal and disciplinary proceed'ings, presumably both, at the instance of the officer punished or the Department and the rule being statutory having been framed in exercise of powers conferred by s. 46(2) of the Police Act, there would be no question of State Government exercising general power of .superintendence under s. _3_ of the Act. It was further observed that _the exercise_ _of such power_ _is_ _ordinarily possible when there_ _is_ _no provision_ _for_ _an_ _appeal unless there are other provisions providing for it._ It would thus transpire that where the power is,limited or fettered or taken away by some specific provision to the contrary, the general power of superintendence would comprehend power to issue directions, orders for performance' of duty in a certain. manner, directing some one else to discharge certain function, refrain from performing certain duty, etc. Superintendence connotes supervision which implies a hierarchy, viz., supervisor nnd the one supervised, It would, therefore, mean keeping a check, (I) [1971] 3 S. C.R. 863. A B c D E F G H ~-- --- A ### • c D F G H 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. watch over the work of another may be a subordinate in a hierarchy of authority. It would also comprehend that supervision is not merely 11. negative thing so as to keep a watch but it would imply giving _ot_ direction, guidance, even instructions, and in a given case and in a given 1>ituation asking one who is being supervised to forebear from doing a thing and directing some one else to do that thing. In 'Words and Phrases', Permanent Edition, Vol. 40A, the word 'superintendence' has been generally stated to mean the act of superintending, care and oversight for the purpose of direction and with authority to direct. To take an analogy, Art. 227 of the Constitution prior to iii amendment by 42nd Amendment conferred on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and this power was held to embrace within its width, _inter_ _alia,_ the power to direct 1ubordinate courts and tribunals to carry out its orders, to direct inquiry with a view to taking disciplinary action for cases of flagrant m:tladrnini•tration of justice (see _Rajkumar_ v. _Ramsunder)_ .(') Tho High Court construed the expression 'superintendence' in s. 3 of. tho Act to mean 'general supervision of the management of the police department and does not vest the State Government with authority to decide what the police_ alone is authorised to decide'. There is nothing in the Act to indicate such a narrow construction of the word 'superintendence'. Nothing was pointed out to us to put a narrow construction on this general power of superintendence conferred under the Act on the State Government and there is no justification for limiting the broad spectrum of power comprehended in power of superintendence. Accordingly superintendence would comprehend the power to direct further investigation if the circumstances so warrant and there is nothing in the Code prO\iding to the contrary so as to limit or fetter this power. Sub-s. (8) of s. 173 was pressed into service to show that the power of furthec investigation after the submission of a report under s. 173 (2) would bo with the officer in charge of a police station. Sub-s. (8) of s. 173 i1 not the source of power of the State Government to direct furthet' investigation. Section 173(8) enables an officer in charge of a police litation to carry on further investigation even after a report under r. 173 (2) is submitted to Court. But if State Government has otherwiss power to direct further investigation it is neither curtailed, limited nor denied by s. 173 (8), more so, when the State Government directs an. officer superior in rank _to_ an officer in charge of police station thereby eojoying all poweni of an officcr in charge of 1 police station to furthec (I) A.LR. 1932 P. C. _69._ ... J #####,. **l** BIHAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ J.) 33 investigate the case. Such a situation would be covered by the combined reading of s. 173(8) with s. 36 of the Code. Such power ia claimed as flowing from the power of superintendence over police to direct a police officer to do or not to do a certain thing because at the stage of investigation the power is enjoyed as executive power untn.• melled by the judiciary. It was incidentally submitted that it is an undisputed dictum of law that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain manner it shall be done in that manner a.Jone and the Conrt would not expect its being done in some other manner (su _State_ _of_ _Gujarat_ v. _Shanti/al Mangaldas_ & Ors.(1) Expounding the 1mbmission it was stated that sub-s. (8) of s. 173 clearly indicates the power of further investigation after submission of a report al)d that power is conferred on the officer in charge of a police station.only and, therefore, the State Government was incompetent to direct further inve11tigation. It was further contended that in view of the provision contained in s. 173 (8) it would not be open to the Court to so interpret the word 'superintendence' in s. 3 of the Police Act as to empower the State Government to direct investigation beingi done by some> one other than the statutory authority envisaged by s. 173 (8) because su~h an interpretation would derogate from the principle that where a thing i9 required by a statute to be done in a particular way it shall be deemed to have prohibited that thing being done in any other way. In _Ex-parte_ _Stephen's('),_ the principle is stated that if a statute directs a thing to be done in a certain way that thing shall not, even if there be no negative words, be done in any other way. Subba Rao, J. in _Patna Improve-_ _ment Trust_ v. _Smt. Lakshmi Devi_ & _Ors.(•),_ spelt out the combined effect of the aforementioned principles thus : "A general Act must .yield to a special Act dealing with a specific subject-matter and that if an Act directs a thing to be done in a particular way, it shall be deemed to have prohibited the doing of that thing in any other way". There is no warrant for invoking this principle because s. 5 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall, in the absence of a i;pecific provision to the contrary, effect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, . or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for tho time being in force. Section 3 of the Act does not prescribe any special procedure for investigation contrary to one prescribed in tho Code. It merely provides for conferment of certsin power which, **whett** (I) (1969) 3 S.CR. 341 <t 372. (2) (1876) 3 Ch. D. 659. (3) [1963) Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 812 at S2J. **A** **B** c **D** F G **TI** _(_ A **B** c **D** E F **H** _34_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. exercised, would project into the provisions of the Code which confers power on the officer in charge of a-police station to carry on further investigatiom under s. 173 (8) after submission of a report and that too without any permission of the Magistrate. There is n0 conflict between the two provisions. Power lt> direct investigation or further investigation is entirely different from the method and procedure of investigation and the competence of the person to investigate. Section 3 of the Act as interpreted by us deals with the powers of the State Government to direct further investigation into the case. Undoubtedly, such direction · will be given to a person competent to investigate the offence and as bas been pointed out, the police officer in rank superior to the police officer in charge of the police station, to wit, Inspector-General, Vigilance, has been directed to carry on further investigation. An ollicer superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of a police station couid as well exercise the power of further investigation under s. 173(8) in view of the provision embodied in s. 36 of the Code, If that be so, such superior officer could as well undertake further investigation on his own and it is immaterial and irrelevant that he does it at the instance or on the direction of the State Government. Such a direction in no way corrodes his power to further investigate on his own. The power of the Magistrate under s. 156(3) to direct further investigation is clearly an independent power and does not stand in conflict with the power of the State Government as spelt out hereinbeforc. The power conferred upon the Magistrate under s. 156(3) can be exercised by the Magistrate even after submission of a report by the investigating officer which would mean that it would be open to the Magistrate not to accept the conclusion of the investigating officer and direct further investigation. This provision docs not in any way affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of the report as provided in s. 173(8). Therefore, the High Court was in error in holding that the State Government in exercise of the power of superintendence under s. 3 of the Act lacked the power to direct further investigation into the case. In reaching this conclusion we have kept out of consideratioH the provision contained in s. 156(2) that an investigation by an otlicer-iii-charge of **a police station, which expression includes police office? Superior** **in** rank to such officer, cannot be questioned on the ground that such investigating officer had no jurisdiction to carry on tho investigation; otherwise that provision would have been a short answer to the contention raised on behalf of respondent I. The High Court found circumstances in which investigatiO)l was directed to be taken by the Inspector-General of Vigilance as peculiar '. ## BIHAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ _l.)_ 35 and unconventional. There are some tell-tale facts disclosed in the record which would totally dispel any doubt in this behalf. After respvndent 3 took over the investigation in circumstances far more curious and unintelligible than what the High Court found in respect of the direction given by the State' Government, respondent 3 directed his subordinate officer respondent 4 to carry on further investigation under his supervision. It would not be out of place to briefly narrate the circumstances in which respondent 3 took over investigation of this case. On a complaint received from one R. H. Modi, Managing Director of TISCO in respect of an intimation calling him to appear at the police station, the Inspector-General of Police, Bihar, requested respondent 3, Addi. inspector-General, C.I.D., to look into the complaint of Mr. Modi whereupon respondent 3 seized the opportunity to take over the investigation from railway police. It is suggested that this routine direction to look into the complaint of R. H. Modi by Inspector-General of Police to Addi. Inspector-General, C.I.D., purports to be an order transferring the investigation from Railway Police to ·c.r.D. It is stretching credulity to extreme to interpret the direction to look into the complaint as one ordering transfer of investigation. The High Court was in error in so interpreting such an innocuous endorsement. This is how respondent 3 arrogated to himself the authority to investigate this case and even when papers of investigation were called from him by the Chief Secretary and were lying with him which would indicate that for the time being respondent 3 was not to fake any action in the matter, he proceeded to direct that a report exonerating · the persons whose names were set out in the first information report be filed in the Court. This would imply that the decision reached by the Superintendent, Railway Police, respondent 6 and his subordinate ln,pector Rizvi whQ had concluded that a charge-sheet had to be filed, was unaccept able to respondents 3 and 4 and in the guise of further investigation, they re-opened the investigation to explain away certain peculiar features of the case of which at present no note need be taken. It appears that the manner in which respondent 3 usurped and his subordinate respondent 4 carried on the investigation, attracted the attention of MLAs/ MLCs. and seven of them submitted a complaint dated August 28, 1978, to the State Government, Inspector General, Vigilance, and others, complaining therein that the officers cf TISCO were bringing tremendous pressure to camouflage the issues disclosed in investigation of respondent 6 and that he has been got transferted a: :he instance of the officers of TISCO which _prima_ _facie_ appeals inasmuch as the. day on which the resident representative of TISCO wrote a letter of request to do something in the matter addressed to the then Chief Secretary, the same day Council of Ministers appears to have decided to transfer 1cspondent 6. The coincidence, if not curious, is certainly revealing, A. B c D E G H -T~-- 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H quested to make enquiries whether any senior police officer concerned with these two cases is involved in corruption or not". That effectively and conclusively answers the futile exercise undertaicen by the High Court to come to an utterly unsustainable conclusion that the case did not involve any corruption or bribery and, therefore, I.G. Vigilance was incompetent to undertake investigation of the case. Misappropriation MLAs./MLCs. made certain allegations against respondent 3 which may be ignored for the time being but two things cranspire from his complaint which are of considerable imporance. It appears that TISCO has a special preference _for_ retired highly placed State and Union level officers and attracts them on salary which none of them drew throughout his service. Mahabir Singh, the retired Inspector-General, Police, Bihar, has been appointed as Chief Security Officer; H. F. Pinto, after his retirement from the post of Secretary to Railway Board, was employed by TISCO. That is equally true of one N. K. Gupta, retired Superintendent of Police, Tatanagar area who got employment with TISCO and no one other than the D.I.G., Railway, against whom not a little of allegation is made in this case, has complained in his letter dated May 11, 1977, that TISCO authorities appoint retired railway and police officers with a view to influencing railway officers and others. He also complained that TISCO authorities are reported to be trying their best to seal all sorts of irregularities and might be manufacturing documents with break neck speed in defence. This emanates from a person who at least has been spared of any allegation by respondent~ _(_ ' 1, 3 and 4 and even those supporting them. The complaint made by MLAs./MLCs. merely vouchsafes the suspicion voiced by D.I.G., Railway, way back on May 11, 1977. This complaint was made by MLAs./MLCs. undoubtedly belonging to the ruling party but that does not detract from its credibility. If on such a ~omplaint made by elected representatives of the people of the State, and in the background of what n.r.G., Railway, had suspected and which was confirmed in the report made by the Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, an officer not connected with the police establishment and free from any allegation of bias, the Chief Secretary, decided to draw altention of the Chief Minister to take some action in the matter so as to transfer the investigation to the C.B.I., a body free from local political influence, there is. hardly any justification for calling the circumstances unconventional or unusual. And this step was taken by the Chief Secretary way back on August 28, 1978. This is a material date. Even at that time the Chief Secretary only prepared a note pointing out what was the situation and why it had beconie necessary to direct C.B.I. investigation in the case. The last sentence in the note dated August 28, 1978, i• . that along with the investigation of the case "C.B.I. may also be ref. BIHAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ J.) 37 of public funds has been complained in the first information report re ' _l._ gistered on March 11, 1977. A suspicion of corruption is voiced by the Chief Secretary. This note was approved meaning thereby that the suggestion therein made was accepted by the Chief Minister on the same day, i.e. August 28, 1978. The acceptance of the note by the Chief Minister would tantamount to taking over the investigation from respondent 3 and his subordinates and to transfer it to C.B.I. It is immaterial whether C.B.I. accepted it or. not. Pursuant to this decision within 5 days, i.e. on September 2, 1978, the Chief Secretary wrote to respondent 3 asking him to send all the papers of investigation to him in a sealed envelope. Respondent 3 was also directed to submit a brief note with respect to the case under investigation to ascertain the stage of investigation. This direction was received by respondent 3 on September 7, 1978. While complying with the requisition for papers, respondent 3 stated that he has pointed out the present progress of investigaticn and the need for further action to be taken. It means investigation was not complete even according to respondent 3. He aloo requested the Chief Secretary to return the papers to him. Respondent 3 a very highly placed police officer would be presumed to be aware of departmental procedure that when all the papers of a case are called for from him any further gction has to be stayed by h,im. In administrative hierarchy one does not go on passing stay orders and it would be too naive to accept such a suggestion. There is nothing to show on record that thereafter any further investigation has Leen done by respondent 3 or his subordinates. ·subsequent thereto, on November 20, 1978, respondent 3 requested the Chief Secretary for the return of the records if they were no more required so that further steps could be taken to complete the investigation. Two unassailable conclusions emerge from this note of respondent 3 : ( 1) that the investigation was not complete; and (2) thaV the same could not be completed without, the records which were then with the Chief Secretary. However, without any rhyme or reason and without the record and without the slightest further investigation with an unseemly hurry respondent 3, with a view to forestalling any action by the higher officers, viz., the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister, directed a final report to be submitted saying that no offence is disclosed. 'The narration of facts are so telltale that any further comment is uncalled for. We consider the observation of the High Court that the entrustment of the case for investigation to Vigilance Department is rather peculiar and unconventional, as unwarranted and unsustainable on the facts hereinabove narrated and discussed. Similarly, the aspersion cast on the complaint of MLAs/ MLCs., lacks judicial propriety in that they were stigmatised and adversely commented upon at their back without calling for any explanation A B c D E G H A B c D E F G . II 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R. from them. In parliamentary democracy elected representatives have a duly to perform and their vigilance in performance of duty without anything shown as unbecoming of them cannot be unilaterally chastised. We say no more. It was next contended that the addition of the Chief Secretary in. suggesting that the investigation be taken over by the C.B.J. and the acceptance of the same by the Chief Minister suffers from legal malice inasmuch as the Chief SecretarY. and the Chief Minister had no jurisdiction, authority or power to make such an order to transfer investigation or to direct further investigation when a report was already submitted by respondent 4 as investigating officer to the Court competent to take cognizance of the case· It was, therefore, submitted that even though no personal _ma/a fides_ is attributed to the Chief Secretary, once be lacked jurisdiction to re-open investigation his note would show legal malioo, Reference was made to _Shearer_ v. _Shields('),_ wherein it is observed that : "Between malice in fact and malice in law there is a broad distinction which is not peculiar to any particular system of jurispmdence. A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed io say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is faken to know the law, and he must act within the Jaw. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far as the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently". This was affirmed by this Court in _Bh11t_ _Nath Mete_ v. _State_ _of West_ _Bengal.(2)_ As pointed out above, if the Chief Secretary as the highest executive officer at the State level exercising power of superintendence over the police of the State posted in general police district would have powers to suggest change of investigating machinery in the circumstances disclosed in the letter dated May 11, 1977, of the D.LG., Railway, the report of the Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Division, and the complaint of MLAs./MLCs, his action could not be said to be without power or authority. In our opinion, if he had acted otherwise, a charge of inaction or failure or default in performance of his duty as the highest chief executive officer would be squarely laid at his door. He acted in the best tradition of the Chief executive officer ;_n public interest and for vindication of tmth and in an honest and unbiaBed manner. Afterall, if he had even the remotest bias against any one, he could have (1) [1914] A.C. 808 at 813. (2) [1974] 3 S.C.R. 315 at 321. _r.,._ ' ' BIHAR _v._ J.A.C. SALDANHA _(Desai,_ _J.)_ 39 as well suggested in agreement with the earlier investigation done by respondent 6 and the report submitted by him for submitting the chargesheet that a charge-sheet should be filed. In fact, in tho background herein discussed, the Chief Secretary with utmost candour, with a view to vindicating the honour of the administration, proposed ascertainment of truth at the hands of C.B.I., a body beyond reproach as far as local politics is concerned. The High Court was, therefore, in our opinion, clearly in error in casting aspersions on the Chief Secretary and the observation "whether respondent No. 2 is lying or the Chief Secretary is feeding ns with false facts is not for this Court to determine ... " is an observation belied by the record and unwarranted in the circumstances of the case, The contention is wholly unmerited. A grievance was made that there was serious impropriety in the Superintendent of Railway Police, Mohammad Sulaiman, directly addressing a letter to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on February 15, 1979, informing him about the decision of the Govern ment to continue the investigation and, therefore, not co accept the final report. lt is true that the police officers should refrain from addressing communications to the Court on pending matters required to be determined judicially and we express our disapproval of this conduct. However, it makes no difference in this case bec_ause the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate acted not on the letter dated February 15, 1979, but on an application made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case and that is the legally accepted mode of obtaining a judicial order. The next contention is that the High Court was in error in exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 at a stage when the Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrale who has jurisdiction to entertain and try the case has not passed upon the issues before him, by taking upon itself the apprecia tion of evidence involving facts about which there is an acrimonious dispute between the parties and giving a clean bill to the suspects against whom the first information report was filed. By so directing the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate the judgment of the High Court virtually disposed of the case finally. As we are setting aside the judgment of the High Court with the result that the case would go back to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, it would be imprudent for us to make any observation on facts involved in the case. There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in tl1e field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an ·offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendent over which ve~ts in the State A B c D F G II A **B** c **D** E F G **H** 40 SUl'REME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under s. 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence be. ing taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in s. 173 (8), there commence! the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime'by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate. This has been m:ognised way back in _King Emperor_ v. _Khwaja Nazir_ _Ahmad('),_ where the Privy Council observed as under : "In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under s. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in **the** **nature of habeas corpus. In such a case** **as** **the present,** however, the court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then". This view of the Judicial Committee clearly demarcates the functions of the executive and the judiciary in the field of detection of crime and its subsequent trial and it would appear that the power ·of tbe police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary. (1) [1944] L.R. 71 I.A. 20Jat 213. ' lllHAR _v._ J.A.C. SAj,DANHA _(Desai,_ J.) 41 Some attempt was made to impress us with utterly irrelevant factor!! as to bow much freight TISCO-is paying to the railways every year and even the amount which may become payable in view of the disputed facte **"llW** also paid some time prior to the filing of the first information report. We would refrain from making even an implied observation on any facts involved in the dispute, The case is not at ' a stage where the court is called upon to quash the proceedings as disclosing no offence but the case is at a stage where further investigation into the offence is sought to be thwarted by interference in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Apart from reiterating the caution administered way back in _Khawaja_ _Nazir_ _Ahmad's_ (supra) case that unless an extra-ordinary case af' gross abuse of power is made out by those in charge of iJ1vestigation as noted in S. _N. Sharma_ v. _Bipen_ _Kumar_ _Tiwari_ & _Ors.(')_ the Court should be ouite loathe to int"erfere at the stage of investigation, a field of activity reserved # J for police and the executive. It :would be advantageous to extract what this Court observed in S. _N. Sharma' s_ case : "It app'ears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investi gate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence **liM** been committed, in apprOpriate cases an aggrieved **pCht.m** can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of tht: High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution under which, **if** the High Court could be convinced that the power of in\festigation has been exercised by a police officer _mala_ _fide,_ the High Court can always issue a writ of _mandamus_ restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers". Not only such a case is not made out but the High Court by an utter ~onception of its jurisdiction almost directed the Magistrate before whom the papers are pending to act in a manner as enjoined by the High Court. How the High Court has usurped the jurisdiction of the leamed Magistrate, the following passage from the judgment of the High Court would be illustrativt. ·After setting aside the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated February 24, 1979, and remitting the CRS!' to the leamed Magistrate, the High Court gave the following direction : "He will now proceed to consider the final report submitted by the Police (C.I.D.). I should, however, like to observe for the benefit of the learned Magistrate that he will bear in mind that mere failure to follow rules and regulations - (1) [1970] 3 S.C.It. 946. 4-868SCl/79 **A** c **D** **E** **.F** **G** **H** A c **D** **F** **G** H 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 2 **S.C.R.** is neither cheating nor breach of trust. He will also bear in mind while applying himself to the case diary with all thoroughness whether there is any materilil to show that the Railways have suffered. In order to constitute offence of cheating causation of damage or harm to a Person in body, mind, reputation or property is essential. The learned Magistrate will direct his attention to this aspect of the matter. Loss to the Railways cannot be presumed merely from the fact of irregular booking. The learned Magistrate will consid~ the effect of issuing of despatch advice and forwarding notes by Tisco at the time of despatch of goods. The learned Magistrate will also bear in mind that mere failure to pay does not amount to cheating for, mere breacll of contract is not cheating. The attention of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is particularly drawn to the cases of _Harkrishna Mahatab_ v. _Emperor_ (AIR 1930 Patna 209), _Major Robert Stuart_ _Wauchope_ v. _Emperor_ (AIR 1933 Calcutta 800) and the _State_ _of_ _Kerala_ v. _A._ _Prasad Pillai and Another_ (AIR 1973 SC 326). To my mind that Railway as an organisation profited rather . than lost by the unusual procedure adopted in relation to Tisco. The learned Magistrate will also consider whether the whole case diary reveals any material· indicating that any P'riblic servant had enriched himself either by bribery or by breach or _1fy_ breach of faith. After going through the. ease diary thoroughly the learned Magistrate will decide dehors the recommendation of Superintendent of Railway Police, respondent No. 7 and C.I.D. whether any offence had been committed and if so which accused should be put on triaP'. Is there anything more required to write the final epitaph and say amen by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistra~ Bfter the finding is recorded by the High Court, more especially finding of fact that railway organisation has profited rather than lost by the nnusnal procedure? It is a clear case of usurpation of jtµisdiction vested in the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate to take or not to take cognizance of a case on the material placed before him. The High Court in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by making observations on seriously disputed questions of facts taking its cue from affidavits which in such a situation would hardly provide any reliable material. In our opinion the High Court was clearly in error in giving the direction virtually amountiRg to a mandamus to close the case before the investigation is complete. We say no more. #### **A** **B** **c** **D** ~ **E** _c._ BIHAR v. J.A.C. SALDANIIA _(Desai,_ J.) _43_ There are some serious allegations made against respondent 6 by the original petitioner and some of them were repeated with vellem•ence even at the Maring before this Court. We do not propose to examine them on merits save and except saying that once the investigation was taken over by respondent 3 and the conclusion reached by respondent 6 and his subordinate investigating officer to file the charge-sheet was not acted upoii, the stage at wjiieh the case was brought to t)le High Court did not call for investigation into the _ma/a_ _fules_ of respondent 6, appellant in the cognate appeal. After making him a respondent in the High Court an opportunity was taken to cast aspersions against his character. His whole attitude in registering an offence and directing invcitigation into the offence has been questioned though an independent officer not even remotely connected with police department, the Commissioner of Chhota Nagpur Division found snbstance in the first information report, in the investigation done by respondent 6 and his conclusion, which again was affirmed by **D.I.G.,** Railway, not shown to be biased. The High Court interfered at the stage where investigation was to be taken up by an indepeadent agency and, therefore, the so called bias of respondeat 6 becomes wholly irrelevant. It must, however, be pointed out that if an information is lodged at the rolice station and an offence is registered, the _ma/a_ _fide_ of the informant w6uld be of secondary importance if the investigation produces unimpeachable evideace disclosing the offence. We, therefore, consider the aspersioAs cast on the character of respondent 6 and the allegations of _ma/a_ _fides_ made against him virtually accepted by the High Court in entirety as nttery irrelevant and the same may be treated as expugned for the purposes of thi~ appeal. We accordingly allow Criminal Appeal 301/79, quash and set **F** aside the order of the High Court and restore the order passed by the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, dated February 24, 1979. In view of this order it is not necessary to pass· any final order in the cognate appeal (Criminal Appeal 300/79) preferred by respondent 6. V.D.K. _State Appeal allowed._