RAGHUCHANDRABAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether State Government has power of superintendence over a case being investigated by Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau Whether the Government is competent to order further investigation ends These are the important questions to be settled in this writ Petition.

(2.) Case of petitioner in brief is as follows: Based on an inquiry conducted by the vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau (in short VACB) on the allegation that as Minister of Excise and as a member of the Legislative Assembly during the period 1991 to 1996, petitioner amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the rune of Rs. 6 lakhs, after getting authorization from Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Crime VC4/2001 of Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Ext. P2 F.I.R, was registered. The allegation against the petitioner is that he constructed a palatial house, T.C.5/2286(1) in 9 cents property in R.S.No.254/1-4 of Randamanda Village in Thiruvananthapuram District investing Rs. 16 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs was spent for acquisition of furniture and had remitted Rs.70,980/- towards the housing loan availed from Kerala State Housing Board during the period and also is having 480 gms gold and inclusive of household expenditure of Rs. 2.53 lakhs, he had a total assets of Rs.20.53 lakhs but the lawful income was only 14.70 lakhs and thereby he has a disproportionate asset of Rs.5.83 lakhs rounded to Rs.6 lakhs. It is contended that after investigation it was found that there is no case against the petitioner, and still Superintendent of Police as per Ext. P3 order dated 19.7.2007, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police-1, VACB, Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram to take up further investigation and thereafter the case was investigated further. Finally a refer report was prepared by the Investigating Officer and sent to the Legal Advisor, VACB, for approval, as a mistake of fact. Petitioner contended that in such circumstance the only course open to the Investigating Agency is to file a final refer report before the court and they failed to discharge the duty by not submitting the report and it is illegal and unprecedented and intended only to harass the petitioner. Petitioner approached the State Public Information Officer, under the provisions of Right to Information Act to get the details of investigation. Under Ext. P4 reply petitioner was informed that after completing the investigation it was submitted to the Director of Vigilance and then forwarded to the Government and is under the consideration of the Government. When petitioner again applied for details of investigation, he received Ext. P5 information to the effect that Vigilance Director has submitted a report to the Government on 15.1.2009 and Government has directed to reinvestigate the case. Ext. P6 copy of the report submitted by the Director of VACB to the Government was also furnished to the petitioner. When petitioner applied for getting the order issued by the Government, Ext. P8 circulation note containing the notes of orders of the Home Minister who is in charge of Vigilance Department, directing reinvestigation was received. It is the case of the petitioner that under Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure the power of investigation is complete vested with the Police and after completion of the investigation, it is for the Investigating Officer to submit a final report to the court and nobody else including the Minister has any right to interfere with that power and therefore Ext. PI order issued by the Government to the Director of Vigilance to take steps to reinvestigate the case is illegal. Petitioner would contend that when the Government has no role in the investigation, Government cannot order reinvestigation and when the Director of VACB already concluded that it is a mistake of fact, Government has no locus standi or legal right to issue a direction for reinvestigation or further investigation and based on it, no further investigation could be ordered. It is contended that the monthly expense of the petitioner was accepted as Rs. 1,28,246/- and as is clear from Ext. P9 the report of the Investigation Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 22,8.2007, petitioner married only in 2003 and his per day expenses before marriage would not have exceeded Rs. 70/- under any circumstance and after revaluation of the cost of construction of the building by the investigating agency it was only Rs. 8,04,271 and not Rs. 16 laks as roughly estimated by the Vigilance Officer at the time of registration of the case, as is clear from Ext. P6 report submitted by the Director of Vigilance, and in such circumstance a writ or direction to quash Ext. PI order and all further proceedings taken against the petitioner for conducting reinvestigation is to be granted. Petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 Director General of Police. VACB as well as Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell to submit a refer report to the court and declare that in the light of Ext. P5 to P8 and the final report petitioner has not acquired assets disproportionate to his known income.

(3.) Subsequently petitioner filed I.A. 6761/2009 to implead the Home Minister as an additional 5th respondent and to add an additional paragraph in the O.P. to the effect that the non filing of a refer report pursuant to the decision of the Director of Vigilance, accepting the final refer report, is only due to the interference by the Home Minister, which was due to political malice and personal prejudice against the petitioner. It was contended that as petitioner used to project the Home Minister as a failure, direction was issued to reinvestigate the case which is illegal. Petitioner contended that when the code of Criminal procedure contemplates only investigation, an order cannot be passed for reinvestigation and even under the Vigilance manual Government has no power to order a reinvestigation and decision of the Government is therefore void abinitio and consequently Ext. P1 is invalid. Petitioner also contended that a period of 12 years was taken for completing investigation and if it is to be protracts further, it would only prolong the mental torture and misery of the petitioner and it would result in injustice and hence is volatile of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.