Criticizing Madras High Court for not allowing former Tamil Nadu Minister to have a copy of the preliminary report filed against him in a corruption case on its own, the Supreme Court observed that principles of natural justice has been violated.
The Division Bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli while adjudicating upon an appeal stated that it is not a Court's place to do so if State don't ask for special privilege.
The allegation against the appellant is that while he was serving as a Minister, he is alleged to have misused his powers to influence the tender process and ensured that tenders were awarded to his close aides.
Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no reason for not making over the documents to the appellant as the State has not claimed that the documents are privileged. He further averred that reliance on two CAG Reports is misplaced and there is no criminality disclosed in the reports.
Counsel for the State, on the other hand contended that the accused would be entitled to access the report only after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of Section 207 of the CrPC. Reliance was placed on In Re: to Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 Latest Caselaw 210 SC
He submitted that FIRs cannot be lodged solely on basis of the CAG report. He called the matter a case of regime revenge wherein change in political dispensation has resulted in the State recanting its initial position to abuse the process against the appellant.
The High Court had directed enquiry into matter. After conducting the same, Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption submitted a final report before the High Court in a sealed cover. In the meanwhile, the Government took a decision to close the case based on the aforesaid report submitted by the Court appointed officer.
The Court noted that rather than deciding this issue, the High Court adjourned the matter by a month. The matter couldn't be listed and during all of this, the State Government changed.
In a turn of events, the State Government went back on their earlier stand to close the criminal case and submitted before the High Court that they intended to conduct further investigation in the aforesaid matter.
In view of the above, the Court opined that the High Court has committed a patent error in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion.Without considering the material before it, and by merely relying on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State, the High Court has made sweeping observations 11 which are prejudicial to the appellant, the Court said.
"Once the enquiry was completed, the High Court failed to even peruse the said report. Rather, the High Court left the decision completely in the hands of the State Government. Such an approach, as adopted by the High Court in the present matter, cannot be countenanced in law."
Observing that the High Court didn't apply principle of natural justice to the present case, the Court noted:
"It is a settled principle that the State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. When the State Government changed its stand, the High Court neither provided the appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a reasoned justification from the State for having turned turtle."
The Court admitted that the contention of the State may be appropriate under normal circumstances wherein the accused is entitled to all the documents relied upon by the prosecution after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of Section 207 of CrPC.
Noting that the present case is easily distinguishable on its facts that initiation of the FIR in the present case stems from the writ proceedings before the High Court, wherein the State has opted to reexamine the issue in contradiction of their own affidavit and the preliminary report submitted earlier before the High Court stating that commission of cognizable offence had not been made out.
In this background the Court ruled that the mandate of Section 207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of the appellantaccused as well as to the principles of natural justice.
Further, the Court emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover. '
The appeal was thus allowed.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
