SURJIT SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. D.C. Raina, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. K.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, Special Investigating Cell, in extenso.

(2.) APPELLANT , Surjit Singh Rana, has assailed the proprietary and legality of the impugned order dated 20 -3 -2002 formulated by learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1092/2000 on the following grounds: "(A) That the judgment impugned is against the facts as well as law. Therefore, the same is liable to be set -aside on this ground alone. (B) That the judgment impugned passed by the learned Single Judge run counter to law the laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Various judgments on the subject, whereby fresh investigation of a matter by an investigating agency has been held unwarranted and illegal. Reference in. this behalf can be made to a recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Case titled T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, reported as AIR 2001 page 2637. (C) That the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment impugned has failed to appreciate the true facts of the matter put forth by the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the investigation in FIR No. 8/99 having been completed by the Crime Branch, Jammu could not have been ordered to be reinvestigated on the basis of some fresh FIRs having been lodged in the year 2001 almost after three years from the date of Lodging of FIR 8/99, and the SRO No.467 of 2001 issued by respondent No.1 thus being illegal, unconstitutional was thus liable to be quashed. Therefore, the judgment impugned is liable to be set -aside on this ground alone. (D) That the learned singe judge has failed to consider the fact that there cannot be two investigations in one matter and the accused alleged to have committed an offence cannot be subjected to any further inquiry into the same offence which has been already investigated upon by an investigating agency having competence. Therefore, the judgment impugned is liable to be set -aside on this ground alone.

(3.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal depicted in narration are that, on the basis of a communication received form Special Cell, Police, Delhi addressed by Special Commissioner of Police Intelligence to Home Commissioner, Srinagar with regard to the issuance of fake arms licences by ADM/DM through Licence Branch, Jammu in urging a need for thorough probe, led to the initiation of a preliminary inquiry by the crime Branch of the State. After preliminary inquiry, it was found by the Crime Branch that there is an inter -Sate racket operating with regard to the issuance of fake arm licences to the needy customers in consideration of huge money in connivance with the concerned officers/officials of DM office, Jammu. A case stood registered under Sections 420/467/468/161 /165 -A/120 RPC with Sections 25/30/54 of the Indian Arms Act, and investigation proceeded. It is further stated that the petitioner/appellant participated in the proceedings, which were almost at its fag end of completion when the State Government by issuing an impugned notification No.Home -AP -75/98 -ll dated 10 -12 -2001 accorded sanction to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for investigation of offences out of FIR -18/96 and 08/99 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu and FIR 31/2001 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Srinagar, inter -alia read with Sections 420,467,468,471 -A of the State Ranbir Penel Code, Samvat 1989 Section 5(1 )(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. According to the petitioner/appellant, this amounts to registration of a fresh FIR, which has the effect of subjecting him again to undergo the agony of re -investigation. The earlier investigation by the Crime Branch of the State continued for a period of three years and this fresh FIR on the basis of same events, having essence same in both, renders the fresh investigation by the CBI agency unwarranted and illegal under the aforesaid notification.