LAWS(SC)-2003-12-90

N C DHOUNDIAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 11, 2003
N.C.DHOUNDIAL Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A search was conducted by the officials of CBI on 25-3-1994 at the residential house of Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha an officer of the Telecom Department (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) at Ranchi. This was followed by searches of the houses of his close relations and contractors at Patna and Ranchi. In between he was admitted to hospital on two occasions. On discharge from CCI Hospital at Ranchi on 3-4-1994, the petitioner was arrested "with a view to interrogate him in custody" and produced before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi with a prayer to remand him to police custody for 10 days. The Special Judge remanded him to judicial custody for a fortnight with a direction to the Jail Superintendent to get him medically examined and to submit the report. On receipt of the report of the Jail Superintendent, he was remanded to police custody for seven days and there was a further order to release him on provisional bail for one month from 13-4-1994. The Court also directed that he should be admitted in CCI Hospital and interrogated there. The provisional bail was confirmed later on subject to certain conditions. The CBI, after obtaining sanction, filed a charge-sheet on 18-8-1998 under S. 13(2) read with S. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income.

(2.) A day thereafter, i.e. on 19-8-1998, the National Human Rights Commission (for short NHRC) received a complaint from Mr. A. K. Sinha alleging illegal detention from 25-3-1994 to 3-4-1994. He also alleged harassment and torture by the CBI officials including Mr. N. C. Dhoundial, S.P., CBI (petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 42/2001). He alleged that a false case was registered against him for extraneous reasons on account of the antagonistic attitude of the S.P. Mr. Dhoundial, towards him. The complainant alleged that the action of the CBI in causing his unlawful detention during the period 25-3-1994 to 3-4-1994 and the harsh treatment meted out to him aggravated his disease of cancer (which was detected later) and a major surgery had to be performed at Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Bombay to save his life. Seven officers of CBI were named in the complaint who, according to the complainant, were directly or indirectly responsible for his illegal detention. NHRC took cognizance of the complaint and called for a report from the Director, CBI. On consideration of the report, the learned Member of NHRC found that there was no substance in the complaint and that no action was called for. The learned Member observed that there was no truth in the allegation of harassment and denial of proper medical attention. It was also observed that the complainant never complained to the Court that he was being ill-treated by the CBI officers. The learned Member further observed that "there was considerable force in the stand taken by the CBI, that this complaint has been filed only to demoralize the CBI officers who are zealously investigating." Proceedings to this effect were drawn up on 6-11-1995. The complainant then filed a petition on 21-9-1999 pointing out certain facts which according to him missed the attention of the NHRC while taking the decision recorded on 6-11-1998. The petitioner prayed for reopening the case and to take a fresh decision after giving him adequate opportunity to present his case.

(3.) The learned Chairman of NHRC, by his proceeding dated 10-3-2003 treated the petition filed by Shri A. K. Sinha as review petition and having found a prima facie case of illegal detention of the complainant by the CBI officials during the period 25-3-1994 to 3-4-1994, thought it fit to recall the findings recorded in the proceeding dated 6-11-1998 and to further proceed with the enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to four CBI officials namely, Shri N. C. Dhoundial, Shri Narayan Jha, Shri P. K. Panigrahi and Shri B. N. Singh as to why appropriate recommendation should not be made to the competent authority for initiating disciplinary action and such other action as may be found expedient. On receipt of replies from the concerned officials of the CBI, the learned Chairman, by his proceeding dated 12-6-2000, rejected the version of the CBI officials, overruled the objections raised by them on points of law and held that the complainant was in de facto custody of the said officials without authority of law during the period 25-3-1994 to 3-4-1994 resulting in the violation of his human rights. The Commission directed the Director, CBI to initiate appropriate disciplinary action for the misconduct of the four officials arising out of the illegal detention of the complainant Shri A.K. Sinha. It was made clear that the direction would not in any manner affect the prosecution of Shri Sinha for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. It may be noted that before recording its findings and giving directions as above, the Commission did not afford personal hearing or the opportunity to adduce evidence to the writ petitioner and other officials.