SUSHIL KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have perused the progress report dated August 28, 1997. We are sorry to say that there has been very little progress during the intervening five weeks. As a matter of fact, the pace of investigation appears to have considerably slowed down ever since the new Director (Sri R.C. Sharma) assumed charge of the office on June 30, 1997, which becomes evident if the last two reports are compared to the previous one. We do not think it is just a coincidence. The events, which we do not want to refer to in this order, suggest otherwise. The state of affairs can be gauged from the fact that in case No. 64(A)/96 in which the then Director had approved prosecution of the accused persons more than two months ago, the proposal for sanction has not yet been submitted to the Government and other sanctioning authorities. Not a single new case has been sent to the Director for his approval. There has been little progress at the lower levels as well as the whole investigating team appears to be demoralised and in a state of inertia.

(2.) THE Supreme Court in S.L.P. (civil) Nos. 20680 -81 of 1996 (Union of India & ors. vs. Sushil Kumar Modi & ors.) [1996 (2) PLJR, 218 (SC) = (1996) 6 SCC 500] arising out of the present proceedings, observed, "the Director at the helm of affairs is duty bound to make a fair, honest and complete investigation into the accusations and to identify all the culprits involved in the scam and to take the necessary steps in accordance with law for the trial of all accused. The ultimate responsibility to ensure a fair, honest and complete investigation into the accusations is that of the Director, CBI and he is expected to discharge his duty and functions faithfully towards the end".

(3.) IN the above circumstances, we think it appropriate to ask the Director, CBI, to explain the reasons for the tardy investigation.