BHOPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 4-8-1995 passed by the State Government whereby earlier order entrusting the investigation to CB, CID of Case Crime No. 129 of 1994 of P.S.Doghat, District Meerut was rescinded and the local police was directed to investigate the same.

(2.) One Raghubir was murdered in the evening of 5-10-1994 and the FIR of the incident was lodged by Rajpal Singh alleging that the applicants had committed his murder by assaulting him with knives. A case was registered as Crime No. 129/94 under Section 302, IPC at P.S.Doghat, District Meerut against all the three applicants. The local police investigated the matter and after investigation submitted a charge-sheet dated 25-11-1994 in the Court of CJM, Meerut. Curiously enough, in the charge-sheet the applicants were shown as absconding though the first informant had moved applications before the CJM alleging that the applicants were roaming scotfree in the village. It appears that before the charge-sheet had been submitted by the local police, the State Government had passed an order directing that the case shall be investigated by CB, CID.An application was also moved by an Inspector of CID (Meerut Zone) before the CJM, Meerut on 11-1-1995 seeking permission of the Court to investigate the case. Subsequently, the State Government passed an order on 4-8-95 by which the earlier order directing investigation by CB, CID was rescinded and it was further provided that the local police shall investigate the case. It is this order which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri G.C.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the investigation had been entrusted to CB, CID it was not open to the State Government to rescind the said order and entrust the investigation to the local police. Learned State Counsel has, on the other hand, urged that the case did not come within the purview of the Government Order dated 15-9-1995, and therefore, now there is no justification for issuing any direction for investigation of the case by CB, CID.The prayer made by the petitioners has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid Government order and, therefore, it is being reproduced in extenso. Another Government Order was issued on 11-10-1995 wherein it is provided that the Director General of Police shall also have power to entrust investigation of a criminal case to CB, CID and he shall give information of any such order passed by him within a week to the State Government. We have considered the various clauses of the Government order and in our opinion, they appear to be quite reasonable. Our experience shows that whenever a case is entrusted to the CB, CID, its investigation takes a long time and further till the conclusion of investigation, no effort is made to arrest the accused and as a consequence thereof, they roam about freely for number of years. In one of the cases which came before us (Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 637/96, Adya Singh v. State), though the murder took place in 1981 and State Government passed an order in the year 1987 for investigation by CB, CID, but the investigation has not yet been concluded and the accused have also not been taken into custody so far. Delay in investigation of a case is normally to the advantage of the accused as the witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and consequently it results in miscarriage of justice. If a large number of cases are entrusted to CB, CID it is obvious that it cannot perform its duty properly and the purpose for which investigation is taken over from the local police and is entrusted to CB, CID is lost. Therefore, the different guidelines laid down in the Government Order dated 15-9-1995 appear to be just and proper.