Summary
A Mumbai businessman charged under the NDPS Act with attempting to sell cocaine in Raipur on 21 October 2020 alleged that Chhattisgarh police had abducted him from a hotel in Odisha the previous day, so the offence could not have been committed, and with his father sought a CBI investigation and quashing of the charge-sheets; the Chhattisgarh High Court refused transfer and declined discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals: transfer to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly where a fair trial cannot otherwise be secured, the alleged abduction is essentially a defence to be established by evidence at the trial already in progress, the named officers are to be examined as witnesses, and the appellants retain remedies including action for malicious prosecution if framing is proved.
Issues
- Whether an accused's allegation that he was illegally abducted and detained by the State police before the alleged offence, which is seriously disputed on affidavits, warrants transfer of the investigation to the CBI under Article 226 after charges have been framed and trial has commenced.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Mithilesh Kumar Singh and Arnab Goswami, a direction for CBI investigation is not to be passed as a matter of routine on allegations against local police but sparingly, in exceptional situations to instil confidence or where the matter has wider ramifications; no such case was made out. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Sections 227 and 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Discharge was rightly refused and quashing does not arise; the accused may put forth his case when examined under Section 313, lead defence evidence and cross-examine the officers whom the High Court has directed to be examined. (¶¶ 4, 11, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- The dispute whether four officers took the appellant from the Odisha hotel on 20.10.2020, which the State denies while admitting that a team went to Odisha and returned empty-handed, is a serious dispute of fact to be resolved on evidence, not affidavits; the contention that he could not have committed the Raipur offence while in illegal custody is essentially his defence at trial, where the five officers named are to be examined and CCTV and other material can be sought. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 20, 21)
- No issue of public importance requires unearthing by the CBI; the trial has progressed unhindered, the father's complaint has been investigated by the Odisha police as explained in its affidavit with legal remedies available, and if the appellant proves he was framed he may pursue malicious prosecution, compensation and action against those involved. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs; Chhattisgarh High Court orders dated 10.01.2022 declining CBI investigation and dated 15.09.2021 declining discharge upheld; all contentions of the appellants left open before the trial court.