SUSHIL KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING course of hearing of this case on 13.11.96 we, prima facie, took the view that the C.B.I. had submitted an 'edited' report dated 11.11.96. We expressed doubt as to whether in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 5.11.96 in Civil Appeal Nos. 14164 -65 of 1996 it is open to the Director, CBI, to edit any part of the report submitted by the Joint Director and/or other CBI officers, and submit a truncated report before the Court. It was observed that if the High Court has to monitor the investigation in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, it is not supposed to do so on the basis of incomplete/truncated reports. We carne to the conclusion that the Director, CBI, had certain misgiving about the import of the Supreme Court's orders aforesaid. We thought it would be appropriate and in the interest of proper investigation into the crimes to discuss the aforesaid aspect of the matter as well as other aspects relating to the course of investigation in his presence. The Director CBI, appeared in person on 11.12.96 and made submissions. We also had the benefit of hearing Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General of India, appearing on his behalf as well as on behalf of the CBI.

(2.) AT the outset of the hearing we told Mr. Andhyarujina that there was a marked difference between the two reports, the one dated 11.11.96 and the other dated 10.18.96, submitted in connection with the hearing on 11.12.96, and reading the two together hardly leaves any room for doubt that the former report had been materially edited, and that the same was not in consonance with the order of the Supreme Court. Both Mr. T.B. Andhyarujina and the Director requested the Court to forget the past and stated in unequivocal terms that no part of the report submitted to the Director, CBI, would be withheld nor any edited or truncated report shall be submitted. Mr. Andhyarujina also filed written submissions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of which it has been stated, "no report of any officer will be withheld from the Court at any stage, and the High Court may call for any report or document and the CBI is bound to obey such direction of this Court forthwith. As the CBI will not withhold any report of any officer which this Hon'ble Court requires, there will be no question of the Director "editing" the report submitted by any officer or submitting a "truncated report" before the Court or withholding any report. In paragraph 3 of the written submissions it has also been stated, "Accordingly, CBI Director has to vet the report submitted by his officers and submit a report to this Court as a report of the. CBI and be responsible for the report."

(3.) WE indicated to Mr. Andhyarujina that there is a very thin line of demarcation between vetting and editing. Mr. Andhyarujina submitted that the Director is the head of the organisation and both in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act as well as in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, wherein he has been made answerable and accountable to the Court for fair, honest and complete investigation, it is necessary that the report to be submitted to this Court should be his report. He pointed out that although there is a hierarchy of officers in the CBI, the Agency functions as one body, at the helm of offairs of which is the Director, and therefore, the report has to be submitted on behalf of the CBI as a whole and it would not be appropriate to direct that the reports submitted by different officers be separately submitted to the Court.