BIJAL REVASHANKER JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Criminal Application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Ms. Bijal R. Joshi, informant in the case known as "Sabarmati Jail blast conspiracy case", seeking direction against State Government not to direct further investigation in the said case.

(2.) Ms. Bijal Joshi, aged 19 years, daughter of a retired mill worker and a student of C. U. Shah Arts College situated in the city of Ahmedabad, is alleged to have been employed in the circumstances mentioned in the complaint as part of the conspiracy for the escape of some of the most notorious criminals including Pakistani spies and Anti-Nationals, against whom there is order under Sec. 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code not to remove them outside the prison. It is also alleged that Ms. Bijal Joshi was trained in martial arts etiquette and arts of conversation to achieve the object. After the training, accused Sayed Pirzada explained to Bijal her mission. She was instructed to visit Sabarmati Jail, and to visit certain prisoners, viz., Abdul Wahab, Javedkhan, Usmangani Noormohmad, Mohammad Sherif, Sattar Battery. She was also booked by the most wanted I.S.I. agent who would (sic.) also to be contacted for vital information. It is also the case of the prosecution that on various occasions she visited Sabarmati Jail, acted as a courier between criminals having link with Latif and Pakistan Intelligence Agency I.S.I. A plan was also arranged for the escape of Javedkhan from jail and replace him with his duplicate. A conspiracy was also hedged to blow up the entire Sabarmati Jail complex and Bijal be sent to Pakistan permanently, showing that she had died in the blast. Investigation also revealed that Mr. V. Kanu Pillai, the Addl. Inspector General (Prison), at the relevant time, Jail Superintendent L. V. Kharadi and Dr. Ramesh J. Dave and Dr. Sutaria, all the four Government officials played role in the conspiracy. It is also alleged that Kanu Pillai misused his official position as Inspector General of Police (Prison) by facilitating the visit of Bijal Joshi to jail. He obtained illegal gratification from accused No. 6 to have sexual intercourse with Bijal Joshi and issued permission to her. Bijal alleged to have made a statement that she was being raped by V. K. Pillai at his house in Gandhinagar and again in his official chamber. The conspiracy could be bursted only when Mr. Pillai was shifted as Managing Director of Gujarat Police Housing Corporation and Mr. Tamhane took over as new Inspector General of Police (Prison). Mr. Tamhane withdrew the permission granted to Bijal. Bijal revealed the conspiracy only when she was given full protection by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (A.T.S.). After investigation the police has filed charge-sheet against 12 accused persons for various offences under Secs. 170, 419, 366, 376, 342 and 120- B and under Secs. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused persons are facing trial. One of the accused, namely "Tiger" is still absconding. The sanction is not given for one of the accused. The Special Judge, City Civil Court has framed charges against 11 accused person. Three of them have challenged the order of framing charge by way of Revision before this Court.

(3.) Mr. J. Mahapatra, Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat has filed an affidavit. It is stated that Mr. V. K. Pillai, one of the accused in the case submitted representation on 27-10-1996 in which he has mentioned about the hostile relationship with Mr. S. N. Sinha, Director General of Police and Mr. K. V. Joseph, Director, A.C.B. who had supervised the investigation of the case. Mr. Pillai has also given instances of hostility between him and the said officers. The further say of Mr. Mahapatra is that the representation of Mr. Pillai was considered by the State Government at various levels upto the highest. The prayer of Mr. Pillai with respect to dropping the prosecution against him was rejected. However, looking to the grievance ventilated by Mr. Pillai particularly of the two senior Police Officers connected with the investigation and further that there are certain material aspects in the investigation which were left out or not properly investigated, it was considered to direct further investigation. The original file dealing with the question of further investigation has been placed before me. I have gone through the file. It is neither advisable nor desirable to state details in this order. Suffice it to say that I do not find any mala fides on the part of the State Government in giving direction for further investigation. The police has power under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 173 to further investigate in respect of offence after report under sub-sec. (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. This position has not been disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. If need be, reference may be given to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Narang v. State (Admn.), reported in AIR 1979 SC 1791, and in the case of Randhir Singh Rana v. The State being Delhi Administration, reported in 1997(1) Crimes 1958 (SC). Dealing with Sec. 173(8) in M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar and Anr., reported in JT 1992(4) SC 487, the Supreme Court has held that the power of investigation into an offence is statutory function of the police and the power of superintendence is vested in the State Government. The Court held that the High Court would not be justified without any compelling and justifiable reasons to interfere with the investigation.