Supreme Court of India
MANIYARI MADHVANversusSUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1993 INSC 306
- Decided
- 22 September 1993
- Bench
- M N VENKATACHALIAH
Holding
When the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142, the procedural requirement of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act does not apply.
Summary
Maniyeri Madhavan, a journalist, alleged that Kerala police assaulted him and his newspaper office and sought an impartial investigation. The Kerala High Court directed a Deputy Inspector General to investigate, but the investigation stalled and the Supreme Court, exercising its Article 142 jurisdiction, ordered the CBI to take over. The CBI report alleged offences including criminal conspiracy, assault, forgery and tampering of evidence against several police officers. The respondents argued that the CBI could not investigate without the State’s consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and that a trial was unnecessary. The Court held that when it acts under Article 142, the procedural requirement of Section 6 need not be complied with, and that guilt must be determined in a criminal trial. It recorded the CBI report and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the matter was left for trial based on the CBI findings.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 142, must comply with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act requiring State consent for CBI investigations.
- Whether the CBI investigation report can be accepted and the case proceeded to trial despite the respondents' claim that no trial is necessary.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 197(3), s. 197(i)(b)
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946s. Section 6
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 223A, s. 323, s. 342, s. 357, s. 427, s. 465
- Protection of Civil Rights Acts. Section 7(i)(d)
Subjects
Article 142Delhi Special Police Establishment ActCBI investigationPolice assaultJournalist rightsCriminal trialSpecial Leave Petition
Judgment
A MANIYARI MADH~ VAN
v.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 22, 1993
B (M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. ANDS. MOHAN, J.)
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142-Supreme Cowt's direction for
investigation by C.B.l.-Procedure to be followed--Held, procedure under s.6
of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, need not be followed where the
C Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142.
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 : S.6-Delhi Special
Police Establishment-Jurisdiction of-lnvestigation in a State-Consent of
State Government-Held, not required where investigation is directed by
Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
D
The petitioner, a journalist and editor of a newspaper, filed a
criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court alleging criminal
assault on person and property at the instance of the police officers of the
State. He prayed for a direction to investigate into the matter by an
E impartial agency. The High Court directed the Deputy Inspector General,
Northern Range of the State to look into the complaint of the petitioner.
The petitioµer filed the special leave petition against the order of the
High Court seeking direction for investigation by the C.B.I. This Court
declined to grant the prayer but gave a diretion on 22.12.1989 that another
F Deputy Inspector General of the State Police, named in the order, would
supervise the investigation, and the same be completed within the time
granted. But the investigation was not completed within the time frame.
The officer supervising the investigation was also sent on deputation
without the orders of this Court. In the circumstances, this Court felt that
G the conduct and progress of the investigation of the case was such as not
to inspire confidence. It recalled the earlier order, and directed the C.B.I.
to investigate the complaint of the petitioner, complete the investigation
and make a report to this Court.
The C.B.I. filed its investigation report stating that the evidence
H collected revealed commission of offences enumerated therein and that the
406
M. MADHAVAN v. S.I. OF POLICE [MOHAN, J.) 407
person named be prosecuted for those offences. A
The respondents contended that the Delhi Special Police Estab·
Iishment could not investigate into the matter unless the State Government
accorded consent for the exercise of power under s.6 of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946. It was also contended that in view of the
facts of the case the trial could not be held and this Court can direct that B
no trial need take place.
Disposing of the special leave petition, this Court
HELD : 1. As regards jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment, the procedure under s.6 of the Delhi Special C
Police Establishment Act, 1946 need not be followed where this Court
exercises jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. Even other·
wise, a notification dated 3.10.1992 was issued by the State Government
according the consent as required under s.6 of the Act. [413-C-F]
2. Whether the police officers are guilty or not of the offences for
D
which they are charged is a matter to be established in a criminal trial.
[413-B]
3. The investigation report submitted by the C.B.I. is recorded.
[410-C]
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Peti-
tion (Crl.) No. 2755 of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.89 of the Kerala High Court
in Crl. Misc. No. 328 of 1989.
F
K.N. Balgopal and C.N. Sreekumar for the petitioner.
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, U.R. Lalit, M.K.
Michael, M.A. Firoz, M.T. George and Ranjan Mukherjee for the respon-
dents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MOHAN, J. The Special Leave Petition is directed against the order
made in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 328 of 1988 before the High Court of
Kerala. The respondent herein filed the said Crl. Misc. Petition against the
officers of Cannanor Town Police and others alleging criminal assault on H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A his printing press. In that petition he sought a direction to investigate into
the matter by an impartial agency.
The short facts are Maniyeri Madhavi is a journalist and is the editor
of newspaper by name 'Sudinam Evening Daily'. He complained of an
attack on his person and property at the instance of the police officers of
B the State. The High Court in a writ petition filed by him considered it
necessary that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range,
be directed to look into the complaint of the petitioner making a repre-
sentation in that behalf. He approached this Court praying for an inves-
tigation by the C.B.I. This Court did not give the direction. However, a
c direction was given that instead of the Deputy Inspector General, Northern
Range, Mr. M.G.A. Raman, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central
Range, would supervise the investigation. It was also directed that a case
be registered on the basis of representation submitted by the petitioner to
Mr. Raman and the investigation be completed within a period of two
months from the date of the receipt of such representation. Pursuant to
D this order, the representation was made to Mr. Raman by the petitioner.
Mr. Raman did not complete the investigation within the time frame. On
11.3.91 the Government of Kerala filed an application seeking extension of
time and certain directions consequent upon Mr. Raman ceasing to be
incharge of the investigation. At this stage, the petitioner moved this Court
on 13.3.1992 praying that the earlier order entrusting the investigation to
E the State Police be withdrawn and the matter be investigated by the C.B.I.
On 3.9.1992 this Court directed the Home Secretary to file an affidavit
mentioning the stage of the investigation and also to specify the names of
officers of the rank of Inspector General of Police, who could be entrusted
with the investigation, if need arose. The Home Secretary ignored the
F order. He asked the Under Secretary to file an affidavit. This Court took
serious notice of this and f'lssed the following order :-
"We are afraid, in this case the concered officers of the State
seem to manifest a disturbing degree of indifference. We take
serious note of these lapses. Apart from considering as to which
G
agency should now investigate this serious offence alleged against
the State Police by a journalist, we would also like the State
Government to explain why Mr. Raman who was in the midst of
the inves\igation, was relieved and sent on deputation without the
orders of this Court. In the meanwhile, the principal accused, the
H Superintendent of Police, has been elevated as a Deputy Inspector
M.MADHAVAN v. S.J.OFPOLICE[MOHAN,.T.] 409
General of Police. Mr. Raman himself will have to explain as to A
why he did not complete the investigation in time; allowed time to
lapse - and according to the petitioner, of allowing evidence to be
lost with ulterior motives - and abandon the supervision of the
investigation. These lapses in the investigation seem to lend
credence to the grievance of the petitioner that Mr. Raman him-
,. self, being a State Police Officer, has not been able to distance B
himself from the interests of these accused of highhandedness
against the petitioner. The Home Secretary will explain why he did
not obey the orders of this Court dated 3.9.1992 which expressly
directed him to file an affidavit.
We direct the Home Secretary, State of Kerala Mr. Raman the
c
then Deputy Inspector General of Police (now working as the
Vigilance Officer of the Hotel Corporation of India) and the Chief
Secetary representing the State, to show-cause why action should
not be taken against them for the lapses and omissions in obe0ng
the orders of this Court. The Home Secretary as also Mr. Raman D
will appear personally before this Court while the Chief Secretary
may be represented by his counsel. Notices in the appropriate form
shall issue to them for proceedings of contempt of Court."
Regarding the grievance of the petitioner it was ordered thus :-
E
"In the meanwhile, the interests of the petitioner have suffered.
His travails in pursuit of an honest investigation of his serious
grievance against the police officers of the State have not ended.
He has been running from pillar to post to have his serious
grievance that the Superintendent of Police virtually destroyed his F
Press, investigated. We think the least that we should do to him
immediately is to compensate him in terms of costs for his being
compelled to approach the Court repetitively for relief, We direct
the State of Kerala to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,000
towards costs, now tentatively assessed, in addition to whatever
damages that may be determined finally. G
This matter be called on 13.10.1992. The Home Secretary and
Mr. Raman, the then D~uty Inspector General of Police (now
Vigilance Officer, Hotel Corporation of India) shall be present in
Court personally on that day. H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Since it appears appropriate that the conduct and progress of the
investigatio1. of the case is such as not to inspire confidence, we
recall the Oj 1erative part of our order dated 22.12.1989 and direct
the C.B./. to investigate the complaint of the petititioner, complete
the investigation and make a report to this Court within four months
from today. All the records of the investigation including the
representation filed by the petitioner before Mr. Raman shall be
transferred by the State to the C.B.I. promptly for further action."
(Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant to this the C.B.I. have filed its investigation report dated
C 5th of May, 1993. We will extract the relevant portions of the report :-
"During investigation evidence hadieen collected to show that
prior to his arrest Shri Madhavan had published several news items
in his evening daily critical of police activity. This seems to have
emaged the District Police Administration in general and accused
D No. 8, the then SP of the District, in particular, as some personal
attacks were also made. The Police were waiting for an opportunity
to get him. They got their chance when he published in his
newspaper on 2.2.1988 the name, parentage, caste and other details
of a rape victim, Kumari Manja, daughter of Chandu, and advasi
girl hailing from Thurunelli, Wayanad District, Kerala. The Police
E managed to procure a complaint typed against Shri Madhavan in
the name of the rape victim and her parents and got their thumb
·impressions on the same alleging that the publication of the identity
of the rape victim and her parents, had caused them pain and loss
of prestige. On receipt of this complaint through SP/Wayanad,
accused No. 8, ordered registration of a case against Shri Mad-
F havan in Kannur Town Police Station. Crime No. 50/88 was
registered by A-1 on 12.2.1988 at 14.30 hours u/s 223A IPC and
7(i)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. On the same day in the
evening a police party consisting of accused No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17
and 18 went to the office of Sudinam and arrested Shri Madhavan.
G They did not reveal the grounds his arrest though asked for. They ·
took him in the pohce jeep driven by A-17 through a circuitous
route to Kannur police station and emoute they manhandled him.
Accused No. 6 followed the jeep in the personal Contessa car of
A-8.
H At the Police Station the body search of Shri Madhvan was
M. MADHAVAN v. S.I. OF POLICE [MOHAN, J.] 411
conducted by A-1 and he was put in the lock-up. The Prisoner's A
Search Register of Kannur Town Police Station has a forged
signature of Shri Madhavan, purported to have been put by him
at the time of his body search. Since, in the meanwhile, news of
his arrest was known in the town, his colleagues and relatives went
to the Police Station to get him released on bail. However, they
were chased out by A-1 and party. Three of them then personally B
met A-8 and pleaded for bail, but they were also rebuffed. Shri
Madhavan was produced before the local Magistrate in the early
hours of next day and he complained to the Magistrate of the
illtreatment at the hands of Police. The Magistrate recorded a
separate complaint, but did not take any further action. He ordered C
his release on bail on personal bond.
There are 3 witnesses who were passing on the road at that time
and heard Madhavan's cries from the jeep. There are no eye-wit-
nesses to prove beating of the complainant while in police custody.
However, there are a number of witnesses who had seen him in the D
Police Stateion with bleeding injuries on the lips. When produced
before the Magistrate at about 4.30 a.m. on 13.2.1988 he had com-
plained to the Magistrate about the police beating and the
Magistrate had recorded his complaint and also observed the blood
stains on the shirt. The Medical Officer who treated him in the E
Hospital has also said that he was complaining of pain all over the
body and had an abrasion on the upper lip. It is also in his evidence
that the SP i.e. accused No. 8 had tried to put pressure on the
Medical Officer to get the person discharged from the Hospital.
After he was arrested, as many as six persons, all respectable F
journalists and an advocate, had gone to the Police Stateion to get
Madhavan released on bail. They were driven out by the police on
the ground that the SP had instructed them not to release him on
bail. Three of them had gone to meet the SP personally 'in his office
for the same purpose, but their request was not accepted. It has G
also come out in the evidence that the SP had remained in the
office till late in the night and was monitoring the progress in the
matter of his arrest and the investigation. This has come out in the
evidence of several eye witnesses including the Sub-Divisional
Police Officer and one SI, who were not parties to the ill-treatment
of the journalist. H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Accused No. 4 and 5 were working directly under the control
of the SP, accused No. 8. With a view to concealing their involve-
ment which would indirectly point towards involvement of the SP,
the records of the Armed Reserve Camp at Kannur were
tamperred with and new page was substituted in the General Diary
to show as it these two police men were present in the camp. The
B fact that the page was changed has been proved by the evidence
of the Superintendent of the Government Press where the said
diary had been printed. There are other interpolation in the GD
to show the presence of these persons in the AR camp. These
interpolations have been done by A-14, 15 and 16 at the instance
c of A-8.
The evidence collected reveals the commission of offences of
criminal conspiracy, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confine-
ment, in attempt to wrongfully confine a person, mischief causing
damage, forgery and causing disappearance of evidence of offence,.
D including giving false information to screen offender, which are
punishable under section 120B r/w 323, 342, 357, 427, 465 and Zill
IPC.
Considering all these aspects, it has been decided that A-1,
A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-8, A-14, A-15, A~16, A-17 and A-18
E be prosecuted for offences u/s 120 B r/w 323, 342, 357, 427, 465
and 201 IPC, after getting the sanction of the Government of
Kerala under section 197(i)(b) and if necessary u/s 197(3) of Cr.
P.C."
Before us it was argued on behalf of the petitioner-journalist that the
F report may be accepted and the matter be proceeded with before the
appropriate forum.
Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the case is
developed by the petitioner from stage to stage when 2 F.I. Rs. are
G propertly scrutinised. A mere cut on the lip, has been magnified and made
much off. Then again, the petitioner would take advantage of the differen-
ces between the police officer and his wife and go to the extent of citing
his wife as a witness on his behalf. This clearly exhibits his vengeful attitude.
In view of all this, the trial could not be held. This Court which directed
the report from C.B.I. Can always say that no trial need take place and
H protect the police officers.
M.MADHAVAN v.S.l.OFPOLICE[MOHAN.J.J 413
Further argument was that the Delhi Special Police Establishment A
cannot investigate into the matter unless the Government of Kerala accord
consent for the exercise of powers Section 6 of Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act.
We have given our careful considerations to the above submissions.
We do not think we can come to the rescue of the police officers. Whether
B
they are guilty or not of the offences for which they are charged is a matter
to be established in a criminal trial. Therefore, we refrain from making any
observation.
As regards jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Estab- c
lishment, we do not think the procedure under Section 6 need be followed
where this Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitu-
tion. Even otherwise, we find a notification has been issued by Government
of Kerala to the following effect :-
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA D
HOME (F) DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
No. 8021/Fl/92/Home Thiruvananthapurarn,
E
Dated 3rd Oct., 1992
In pursuance of the provisions of section 6 of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the
Government of Kerala hereby accord consent to the extension of
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police F
Establishment in the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation
of the complaint of Shri Maniyeri Madhavan, Editor, 'Sudinam
Dairy' Kannur as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of I.ndia
in their order dated 24.9.1992 in SLP No. 2755/88.
(By order of the Governor), G
Sd/-
C.P. Nair
Commer. & Secretary to
Government
Explanatory Note H
414 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1993]SUPP.2S.C.R.
A (This does not form part of the notification, but is intended to
indicate its general purport).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in their order dated
24.9.1992, in SLP No. 2755/88 has directed the Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate the complaint of Shri Maniyeri Mad-
B havan, Editor, 'Sudinam Daily', Kannur against the attacks made
on him and his property allegedly at the investigation of certain
police officers of the State of Kerala, and to submit a report within .
four months. Hence this notification."
c the lawAlltakethatitsthis Court has to do is to merely record the report and let
course. The Special Leave Petition is ordered on the .:hove
terms.
R.P. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 142"Sign in to search