Holding

In appropriate cases where the State police investigation is not in the proper direction and senior police officials are involved, the Court may transfer the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI even after a charge‑sheet has been filed.

Summary

Narmada Bai, the mother of Tulsiram Prajapati, filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that her son was killed in a fake police encounter in Gujarat and that senior police officials and a politician were involved. She sought a direction for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR, investigate the matter, and award compensation. The Supreme Court examined whether, after a charge‑sheet had been filed by the State, the Court could still order a transfer of investigation to an independent agency, and whether the petitioner had established a case for such a transfer. Relying on the earlier Rubabbuddin Sheikh judgment and a host of precedents, the Court held that even after a charge‑sheet, the Court may transfer investigation to the CBI when the State police investigation is tainted, especially where high‑ranking police officials are implicated. Finding substantial material, inconsistencies in the State investigation, and a strong suspicion of a fake encounter, the Court directed the Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh police to hand over all records to the CBI, which was ordered to complete its investigation within six months. The petition was allowed, with the matter of compensation left to the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can order a transfer of investigation to the CBI after a charge‑sheet has been filed by the State police.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for entrusting the investigation of the alleged fake encounter to the CBI.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1)(AB), s. 25(1)(C)
Bombay Police Act, 1951s. 135
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2), s. 173(8), s. 220
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 224, s. 225, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

fake encounterCBI investigationtransfer of investigationSupreme CourtArticle 32criminal procedurepolice misconductpublic interest litigationSection 220 CrPCSection 173 CrPChigh police officialsGujaratRajasthanSohrabuddin casecompensation

Judgment

(2011] 5 S.C.R. '729

NARMADA BAI A
v.
, · STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS .. . .~ i

· (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2007)
; -' ~ • 1 0 ' • • \- ' ,;

. , APRIL 8, 2011
~ ' y, - ~
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND,, DR: B.5. CHAUHAN,, JJ.l
. .' ····~ ' . .-
;
"
'

-
Investigation/inquiry: Allegation against high police
officials and senior politician - Filing of charge-sheet by the ,
State. agency - Writ petition seeking investigation· by C
specialize<;} agency - Held: In an appropriate case,
particularly, when the court feels that the investigation by the
State police authorities is not in the. proper direction as the .
high police officials are involved, in order to do complete
justice, "it is always open· to· the Court to 'hand over the D
investigation ·to an independent and specialized ·agency like
the CBI even when charge sheet is submitted - lil the instant ·
case, the petitioner sought transfer of case 'to CBI to
investigate fake encounter killing of her son (victim) -'It was
the definite case of the CBI that the' abduction of 'S' and 'K; E
the associate of victim and their subsequent murders as well
as the murder of the victim were one series of acts, so
connected together as to form the same transaction ills. 220,
Cr. P. C. and if two parts of the saine transaction were
investigated and prosecuted by different agencies,; it might' F
cause failure of justice not only in one case but in other trial
as well - ·There was substantial material already on record
which made it probable that the prime motive of elimination
of victim was that he was a witness to abduction of 'S' and 'K'
- Evidence raised strong suspicion that the encounter was G
fake and stage managed as predicted by victim prior to his
death - Much before the incident of alleged fake encounter,
complaints were lodged bY. victim in writing to the Collector
and to the NHRC expressing the apprehension that he was .

729 H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A likely to be killed by Gujarat and Rajasthan police - It is the
age old maxim that justice must not only be done but must
be seen to be done - The fact that senior police officials and
a senior politician were accused may shake the confidence
of public in investigation conducted by the State Police - The
s analysis of the materials showed several lacuna on the part
of the investigation by the State Government - In view of
circumstances and in the light of the involvement of police
officials of the State of Gujarat and police officers of two other
States, i.e. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, it is not desirable
c to allow the Gujarat State Police to continue with the
investigation - Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice and
in the public interest, the CBI is directed to take over the
investigation - Police Authorities of the Gujarat State are
directed to handover all the records of the case to the CBI.
D Criminal trial: Transfer of investigation to CBI ordered by
the Supreme Court - Submission of report by CBI and
subsequent monitoring - Held: Once a charge sheet is filed
in the competent court after completion of the investigation,
the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the
E purpose of making the CBI and other investigating agencies
concerned perform their function of investigating into the
offences concerned comes to an end - Thereafter it is only
the court in which the charge sheet is filed which is to deal
with all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including
F matters falling within the scope of s. 173(8) Cr.P.C.
In *Rubabbuddin Sheikh case, the Supreme Court
directed the CBI to investigate all aspects of the case
relating to the killing of one 'S' and his wife 'K' in a fake
G encounter. In the said judgment, the court recorded that
· there was strong suspicion that the third person picked
up with 'S' was 'T' and a possibility of "larger conspiracy"
and that killing of 'T' was part of the same conspiracy. 'T'
was stated to be a key witness to the murder of 'S' and
'K'.
H-·
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 731

The petitioner in the instant writ petition was the A
mother of 'T'. The grievance of the petitioner was that her
son had been done away by respondent Nos. 6-19, the
officials of Gujarat and Rajasthan police in a fake
encounter with the ulterior intent to shield themselves in
the investigation emanating under the directions of the B
Supreme Court in *Rubabbuddin Sheikh case. The instant
petition was filed by her under Article 32 of the
Constitution praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus
or in the nature thereof or any other writ, order of
direction directing the CBI to register a First Information c
Report and investigate into the fake encounter killing of
her son and submit its report to the Supreme Court. The
petitioner also prayed for compensation for the killing of
her son in a fake encounter thereby causing gross
violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
D
The issues which arose for consideration in the
instant writ petition were whether after filing of the
charge-sheet by the State agency, the court is precluded
from appointing any other independent specialized
agency like the CBI to go into the same issues if the E
earlier investigation was not done as per the established
procedure; and subject to the answer relating to the first
issue whether the petitioner has made out a case for
entrusting the investigation to the CBI.
F
Allowing the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In an appropriC!_te case, particularly, when
the Court feels that the investigation by the State police
authorities is not in the proper direction as the high
police officials are involved, in order to do complete G
justice, it is always open to the Court to hand over the
investigation to an independent and specialized agency
like the CBI. It is clear from the judgment of *Rubabbuddin
Sheikh case that there was a strong suspicion that·the
H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A 'third person' picked up with 'S' was 'T'. It was also
observed that the call records of 'T' were not properly
analysed and there was no. justific~tion for the then
ir;ivestigating officer to have walked out of the
investigation pertaining to 'T'. The Court had also
B directed the CBI to unearth "larger conspiracy" regarding
the murder of 'S'. In such circumstances, those
observations and directions ca1:mot lightly be taken note
of and it is the duty of the CBI to go into all the details as
directed by this Court. [paras 11, 19) [7 47-E; 756-E-F]

C *Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2010
(1) SCR991 = 2010 (2) SCC 200; Vineet Narain vs. Union
of India 1996. (1) S~R 1053 = 1996 (2) SCC 199 - relied
on.

D Union of India vs. Sushi/ Kumar Modi (1998) 8 SCC 661;
Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (Vfll) vs. Union of India 2006 (4)
Suppl. SCR 742 = 2006 (6). SCC 613; Hari Singh vs.
State of U.P. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 59 = · 2006 (5) sec 733
; Aleque Padamsee vs. Union of India 2007 (8) SCR 390 =
E 2007 (6) SCC 171; MC. Mehta vs. Union of India 2007 (10)
SCR 1060 = 2008 (1) SCC 407; R. S. Sodhi vs. State of
U.P.' 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143; Ramesh Kumari vs .. State
(NCT of Delhi) 2006 (2) SCR 403 = 2006 (2) sec 677;
Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration 1988 Supp SCC 482;
F Gudalure M.J. Cherian vs. Union of India 1991 (3) Suppl.
SCR 251 = 1992 (1) SCC 397 ; Punjab & Haryana High
Court Bar Asson. vs. State of Punjab 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR
915 = 1994 (1) sec 616 - referred to.

1.2. In the instant case, it was the definite case of the
G CBI that the abduction of 'S' and 'K' and their subsequent
mµrders as well as the murder of 'T' were one series of
acts, so connected together as to form the same
transaction under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. As rightly
pointed out by the CBI, if two parts of the same
H
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 733

•
transaction are investigated and prosecuted by different A
agencies, it may cause failure of justice not only in one
case but in other trial as well. There was substantial
material already on record which made it probable that'
the prime motive of elimination of 'T' was that he was,a
witness to abduction of 'S' and 'K'. Both oral and B
documentary evidence raised strong suspicion that the
encounter was fake and stage managed as predicted by
'T' prior to his death. Much before the incident of alleged
fake encounter of 'T',· two· complaints were lodged in
writting, one to the Collector, Udaipur and another c
addressed to the Chairman; NHRC, New Delhi'
expressing the apprehension that he is likely and going
to be killed by Gujarat and Rajasthan police. [Paras 23,
32] [759·B~E; 763-C"F] · _,_ · ·· . ..., ,
' j ~· • i 'I i!'"' • > )'("D'
1.3. It is the age-~!d.ir!_axim that justice must not only.
be done but must be seen to be done. The fact-that in the .
case of murder of an associate of 'T', senior police
officials and a senior politician were accused which' may
shake the confidence of public in investigation coilauctEfd'
by the State Police. If the majesty of rule of law is to be E
upheld and if it is to be ensured that the guilty are
punished 'in accordance with law notwithstanding their'
status and authority which they might have enjoyed, it is'·
desirable to entrust the investigation to the CBI. It was the
specific claim of the State of. Gujarat that they have. F1
conducted a fair and impartial investigation into the killin'g
of 'T', however, analysis of the materials showed several
lacuna on the part of the investigation by the State
Government. Therefore, without entering into the
allegations leveled by either of the parties, it would be G
prudent and advisable to transfer the investigation to an
independent agency. It is trite law that accused persons
do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an .
investigation agency. The accused persons cannot·
H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A choose• as to which investigation agency must
investigate the alleged offence committed by them.
Although, charge-sheet has been filed by the State of
Gujarat after a gap of 3 ~ years after the incident, that too
after pronouncement of judgment in Rubbabudin's case
B and considering the nature of crime that has been
allegedly committed not by any third party but by the
police personnel of the State of Gujarat, the investigation
conducted and concluded in the instant case by the State
police cannot be accepted. In view of various
c circumstances highlighted and in the light of the
involvement of police officials· of the State of Gujarat and
police officers of two other States, i.e. Andhra Pradesh
and Rajasthan, it would not be desirable to allow the
Gujarat State Police to continue with the investigation,
accordingly, to meet the ends of justice and in the public
0
interest, the CBI is directed to take the investigation.
[Paras 31, 32, 36, 37) [762-H; 763-A-C; 765-H]

Md. Anis vs. Union of India and Ors. 1993 (1) Suppl.
SCR 263 = 1994 (1) Suppl. sec 145 - relied on.
E
M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India and
Others 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683 =2007 (1) SCC 110 -
referred to.

2. once a charge sheet is filed in the competent court
F after completion of the investigation, the process of
monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of
making the C~I and other investigating agencies
concerned perform their function of investigation into the
offences concerned comes to an end and thereafter it is
G only the court in which the charge sheet is filed which is
to deal with all matters· relating to the trial of the accused,
including matters falling within the scope of Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. [Para 38) [766-F·H]

H 3. The Police Autho'rities of the Gujarat State are
NARMADA BAl v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 735

directed to handover all the records of the instant case A
to the CBI within two weeks from this date and the CBI
shall investigate all aspects of the case relating to the
killing of 'T' and file a report to .the concerned .court/
special court having jurisdiction within a period of six
months from the date .of taking over of the investigation B
from the State Police Authorities. The Police Authorities
of the State of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh
are also directed to cooperate with the CBI Authorities in
conducting the investigation. Though the petitioner has
prayed for compensation for the killing of her son, c
inasmuch as the CBI is directed to investigate and submit
a report before the court concerned/special court within
six months, depending on the outcome of the
investigation, petitioner is permitted to move the said
court for necessary direction for compensation and it is D
for the said court ·to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. [Paras 39-40) [767-H; 768-A-Ej
~ Case Law Reference:

2010 (1) SCR 991 relied on Para 2, 13, 16, E
17, 38, 36
1996 (1) SCR 1053 relied on Para 11, 38
(1998) 8 sec 661 . referred to Para 11, 38
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742 referred to Para 11 F
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 59 referred to Para 11
2007 (8) SCR 390 referred to Para 11
2007 (10) SCR 1060 referred to Para 11 G
1994 Supp (1) sec 1.43 relied on Para 11, 34
2006 (2) SCR 403 referred to Para 11
1988 Supp sec 482 referred to Para 11
H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 251 referred to Para 11
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 915 referred to Pi;ira 11
1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 263 referred to Para 33
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683 referred to Para 37
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.)
No. 115 of 2007. · ·

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
c H.P:. Rawal, ASG, Ranjeet Kumar, Ram Jethmalani, KTS
Tulsi, Jaideep Gupta, Tushar Mehta, AAG, Huzefa, A. Ahmadi,
Meenakshi Arora, Hemantika Wahi, Pranav Diesh, Karan
Kalia, Anish K. Gupta, Subramonium Prasad, Rajat Khattry,
Maheen Pradhan, A.K. Sharma, Deepak Prakash, Biju P.
D Raman, Rajesh B., Malini Poduval, Bhupender Yadav, S.S.
Shamashery, Debaleena Kilikdar, B. R. Barik, R.C. Kohli, Gp.
Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Jyoti Upadhyay, Rashid Khan,
Padmalakshmi Nigam: Harsh N. Parekh, Sonam Anand, S.N.
Terdal for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Narmada Bai-the petitioner herein,
mother of Tulsiram Prajapati-the deceased, who, according to
her, was killed on 27/28.12.2006 in a fake encounter by
F respondent Nos. 6 to 19, who are the officials of Gujarat and
Rajasthan Police, somewhere on the road going from
Ambalimal to Sarhad Chhapri, has filed the above writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance
of a writ of mandamus or in the nature thereof or any other writ,
G order or direction directing the Central Bureau of Investigation
(in short 'the CBI') to register a First Information Report (in short
'FIR') and investigate into the fake encounter killing of her son
and submit its report to this Court. In the same petition, she also
prayed for compensation for the killing of her son in a fake
H
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 737
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
encounter thereby causing gross violation of Articles 21 and 22 A
of the Constitution .

. 2. _Case_ of the Writ -Petitioner:-_ ·
1
- (a) According to the petitioner, she is 55 years.old illiterate
widow. Her younger son had been done away by respondent'. B
Nos. 6-19 in a fake encounter with the' ulterior intent to shield
themselves in the investigation emanating under the directions
of this Court in the· case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs"' State of
G~jarat & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 200.- ~he came.to know through
local pe.rsotis abo~t the fake".ehco,unter, an,d killing' of- C
Sohrabuddi.n· and his wife Kausarbi and ,the d_irections of this
Court
'
in that case. On being
.
-
informed. abouUhe said incident,
' ' ): .
she approached this Court for.directions to register an FIR into,
the fake encounter killing of her son' :tulsiram' Prajapati and
investigation by an independent agency, l_ike the CBI and for D
submission of its report to this Court for further action.
According to the petitioner, the fake.encounter killing of her son
is directly ·connected to the case of sohrabuddin a·nd his wife
Kausarbi as he would have been a material witness to the said
killings. - . .' · ' E
l:' • ' ·, . .

. - (b) It is further stated that her son'TulsiramPrajapati while
lodged in_ Central Jail, Ucjaipur, had addressed a letter dated _
11.05.2006 to the Collector, Udaipur informing him about the
life threatening attack carried out on him in Udaipur Central Jiiil
on 25.03.2006, when he was beaten up with.iron rods and lathis F
by co-prisoners. He expressly wrote that there was conspiracy
to kill him along with two· others and_ a1$0 named the persons
who were behind the conspiracy and requested that incident -
be investigated and his life be protected. Thereafter, on~
18.05.2006, the deceased also addressed a. letter to the G
Chairman, National Human Rights Commission (in short
'NHRC') alleging that there was conspiracy among the police
officials of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, etc. to do away
with him in a fake encounter by cooking up a false story.of.
.
n.mning away from custody, In the _ said letter, the deceased H.
-
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A specifically requested that his security be ensured whenever he
is taken on remand. In the same letter, he also mentioned that
the Gujarat Crime Branch and Anti Terrorist Squad (in short
'ATS') were very notorious for staging fake encounters. The
NHRC acknowledged the receipt of the said letter and
B forwarded a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur,
Rajasthan vide letter dated 22.06.2006.

(c) Thus from March 2006, the deceased had been
expressing serious apprehensions and threat to his life at the
hands of the police. The deceased had reasons to believe that
C Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, respondent No.8,
had taken a huge sum of money from the Marble traders and
dealers in Rajasthan with the assurance that he would do away
with him in a fake encounter. Before he being interrogated by
Ms. Geeta Johri, an officer investigating the matter of fake
D encounter killing of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi, in the
night intervening 27/28 December, 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati
was done away in a fake encounter by respondent Nos. 6-19.

(d) Quoting from certain newspaper reports, more
E particularly, the Times of India dated 29.12.2006, the petitioner
has alleged that her son was being escorted by Udaipur
(Rajasthan) Police from Ahmedabad to Udaipur in a train. When
the train was passing through Himatnagar-Shymlaji Stretch, the
deceased sought permission to go to the toilet. The policemen
F escorted him to the toilet where two of his accomplices
disguised as passengers attacked the policemen by throwing
chilli powder in their eyes. When the policemen called for the
other members of the escort party, the goons fired at them and
jumped off the moving train. In response, the police opened fire
G but the accused fled in the cover of darkness after shooting
back at the police.

(e) Pursuant to such alleged fleeing of Tulsiram Prajapati
from police custody, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, SP, Udaipur called Mr.
Vipul Agarwal, SP Banaskantha and informed him of the same.
H Thereafter, local police of Banaskantha headed by Mr. Vipul
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 739
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Agarwal under direct supervision of Mr. D.G. Vanzara, Range A
DIG, swung into action and registered an FIR being Crime
Register No. 115 of 2006 at Ambaji Police Station;
Banaskantha, on 28.12.2006 at 8.00 hrs. claiming that Tulsiram
Prajapati had been killed in an encounter.

(f) It is further alleged that when patrolling was carried out, B
three persons tried to stop one Matador van but the vehicle did
not stop there. It has also been alleged that a police jeep of
Mr. A.A. Pandya, SI w~s coming behind the Matador and the
said three persons tried to stop it. On stopping the police jeep,
Mr. Narayansinh Fatehsinh Chauhan, ASI recognized one of the C
three persons in the light of jeep as the absconding Tulsiram
Prajapati. On seeing that, the deceased took out a weapon kept
in the nylon belt on his waist and fired which hit the left side of
the mudguard of the police jeep and ran away in the darkness.
While running, they fired at the police party in which one bullet D
hit at the left shoulder of Shri A.A. Pandya, SI. It is alleged that
· in self-defence Shri A.A. Pandya fired two rounds from his
service revolver and Mr. Narayansinh Fatehsinh Cha.uhan and
Mr. Yuddharamsinh Nathusinh Rajput, Rajasthan police
constables also fired from their weapons. On account of the E
firing by the police party, bullets hit Tulsiram Prajapati and he
fell down on road side and the other two persons ran away and
could not be traced. Thereafter, he was taken to Ambaji
Cottage Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor
ond~. · F

(g) It is the further case of the petitioner that the deceased
being a key eye witness to the murder of Sohrabuddin and his
wife Kausarbi, the team of Mr. D.G. Vanzara and others planned
to do away with him to avoid his interrogation by Ms, Geet.a
Johrl, ·Inspector General of Police. The aforesaid facts create G
a strong suspicion on the conduct of respondent Nos. 6 to 19
and the petitioner has every reason to believe that her son-
Tulsiram Prajapati has been killed by them in a fake. encounter.
She also alleged that the. respondents/accused officers enjoy
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A powei'ful position in their respective State Police and are trying
to obstruct further inquiry into the fake encounter killing of her
son, who was a material witness in the case of fake encounter
of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi. Hence, the petitioner
has preferred this petition before this Court praying for direction
B to CBI to register an FIR and investigate the case.

3. Stand of the State of Gujarat - respondent No.1

(a) Shri l.M. Desai, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID
(Crime), Gujarat State filed an affidavit wherein it was stated
C that the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is
not maintainable as the case registered in respect of death of
the petitioner's son in police firing on 28.12 .2006 was under
investigation. The Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2007 being a
Habeas Corpus was entertained by this Court as an
D exceptional case and, therefore, the same cannot be cited as
a precedent. It was further stated in the said affidavit that
Tulsiram Prajapati was a dreaded inter-state criminal and was
also known as Tulsiram Prajapati @ Prafull @ Samir son of
Ganga Ram Prajapati involved in 21 criminal cases and he was
E killed on 28.12.2006 in police firing after escaping from police
custody. In respect of the same, an FIR was registered in
Ahmedabad Railway Police Station of Gujarat vide CR No.
294/06 under Sections 307, 224, 225, 34 of Indian Penal Code
(in short "IPC") and Section 25(1)(AB) of the Arms Act, 1959
F and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951.

(b) According to the State, after escaping from the Police
Custody, Tulsiram Prajapati was again confronted by Gujarat
Police and Rajasthan Police and was killed in police firing for
which an FIR was registered in Ambaji Police Station vide CR
G No. 115 of 2006 dated 28.12.2006 under Sections 307, 427,
34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(C) of the Arms Act, 1959 and
Section 135 ofthe,Bombay Police Act, 1951. Since the cases
in 'respect of the above two incidents had already been
registered in the Police Stations, there is no need to register
H a fresh case as claimed by the petitioner. It was further stated
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF'GUJARAT AND ORS. 741
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
that Tulsiram Prajapati was not a matehal witness in the case A
of SohrabUddin. He also denied that any such incident had
taken place within the premises of Udaipur Central Jail as
claimed by the petitioner on 25.03.200!;; but t~erE~ was a quarrel
among the prisoners on. 24.03.2006 in the Court lock-up for
which a criminal case was registered at Bhopalpura Police B
Station in C.R.No. 131of2006 under Sections 341, 323, 506
and 34 IPC.
' ..
(c) As regards the. complaint made to the NHRC,
investigation carried out so far revealed that no '.such conspiracy' C
amongst the police officers of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh and Rajasthan has come on record. The deceased ·
also never showed any apprehension to the petitioner about·
danger. to his life from marble dealers or police. officers of
Udaipur: The. petitioner's claim about Tulsiram Prajapati's
apprehension to his life is at the most hearsay and based on D
extraneous con~iderations.
~· •t

(d) The claim thafthe deceased-Tulsiram Prajapati was
highly inconvenient witness for respondent Nos. 6-19 is without
substance as respondent No. 10 - Mr. V.L. Solanki, an inquiry E
officer, has stated in respect of alleged killing of Sohrabuddin.
that during preliminary enquiry there was· no link between
Tulsiram Prajapati and the death of Sohrabuddin and his wife
Kausarbi in an encounter. The same view has been expressed·
by Ms. Geeta Johri, IGP under whose direct supervision the . F
case relating to Sohrabuddin was investigated. The 'third;
person' allegedly present at the time of abduction of
Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi was Kalimuddin and not Tulsiram
Prajapati. .. ,

(e) In the subsequent affidav.it dated 19.08.2010, G
Dashrathbhai, R. Patel,, Under Secretary, Gqvernrnent .of
Gujarat, Home Department has stated that the State CID
(Crime) has filed a charge-sheet which is the subject-matter.of
present writ petition. It is the consistent.stand of.the. State that
the eneounter killing of Tulsiram Prajapati (subject-matter of Writ H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A Petition (Crl.) No. 115 of 2007) has nothing to do with the killing
of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi (which was the subject-matter
decided by this Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2007).

4. Stand of Mr. Amit Shah - respondent No.2:
B (a) The present writ petition is an abuse of the process of
law by/at the behest of political party controlling the CBI.

(b) The investigation in a criminal case normally takes
place in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
c Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.') and by the
normal investigating agency prescribed. The Constitutional
Court can direct deviation from such statutorily prescribed
method of investigation and direct an outside agency like the
CBI to step in and investigate an offence only in extraordinary
0 circumstances and in rarest of rare cases. The petitioner has
not led factual foundation of facts to hold that the present case
is one of the rarest of rare cases which requires deviation from
the statutorily prescribed mode of investigation.

(c) On perusal of both the investigations and charge-sheet
E which are filed in both the offences, it is seen that there is no
credible evidence to support the view that Tulsiram Prajapati
was that 'third person' and the evidence which the CBI is relying
on is clearly fabricated being based on the unreliable
statements of witnesses. On the other hand all available
F evidence points to the fact that the 'third person' could only be
Kalimuddin @ Naimuddin who is under the protection of the
Andhra Pradesh Police. The CBI is seeking to take over
Tulsiram Prajapati's encounter case only to fabricate the
evidence and to destroy the charge-sheet filed by the Gujrat
G Police in Tulsiram Prajapati's case. The status report filed by
the CBI in Sohrabuddin's case that Tulsiram Prajapati was the
'third person' which is a blatant lie. Though there is no link
between the two and yet the CBI is attempting to fabricate a
link that does not exist. Inasmuch as the CBI which has lost all
H its credibility as an independent a9ency and is being used by
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 743
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.] A
political party in power in the Central Government, in the A
absence of any extraordinary circumstances having been
shown by the petitioner in the petition no direction need be
issued for handing over the investigation to the CBI and prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
B
(5) Stand of the CBI - respondent No.21:

(a) The investigation conducted in R.C. No. 4(S)/2010,
Special Crime Branch, Mumbai, as per the directions of this
Court in its order dated 12.01.2010, vide Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
6 of 2007 revealed that the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram C
/ Prajapati on 28.12.2006 was done in order to eliminate him
as he was the key witness in the criminal conspiracy of the
abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi by the
powerful and the influential accused persons. The investigation
further revealed that the deceased knew that his death was D
imminent at the hands of Gujarat Police in connivance with the
Rajasthan Police as he was the prime witness to the said case.

(b) The investigation also revealed that Tulsiram Prajapati
was brought to Ahmadabad on 28.11.2006 and 12.12.2006 in
connection with the case No. 1124 of 2004 in JM Court No. E
13, Ahmadabad, along with co-accused Md. Azam and around
50 police commandos were accompanied for the escort party,
whereas on 25.11.2006, Tulsiram Prajapati was brought alone
on police escort by Rajasthan Police from Udaipur Jail when
less than five police men accompanied him. After the orders F
of this Court for the investigation by this agency, it emerged that
police officials of ATS, Ahmadabad were involved in the.
abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and his wife KausarbL

(c) The murder of Tulsiram Prajapati took place on G
28.12.2006, case was registered on 28. 12.2006 and Gujarat
CID commenced investigation on 22.03.2007. However, even
after a lapse of 3 years, no action was taken against any of
the accused. As directed by this Court, only on the investigation
of Tulsiram Prajapati's case, the "larger conspiracy" would be H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A established .and the mandate and tasks assigned by this Court
to the CBI would be accomplished both in letter and spirit
towards the goal of a fair trial, upholding the rule of law. If
Tulsiram Prajapati's fake encounter case is not transferred to
the CBI for investigation, it may lead to issue-estoppal or res
8 judicata against prosecution.

Stand of the other respondents

6. As far as the officials of the Gujarat State Police are
concerned, they reiterated the stand taken by the State. rv)r. ·
C Dinesh Kumar, S.P. Udaipur, Rajasthan-respondent No.8 has
filed a separate counter affidavit denying all the allegations
made by the petitioner and taking the same stand as that of
the State of Gujarat and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition. ·
D
7. In the light of the above pleadings, we heard Mr. Huzefa
A. Ahmadi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Ranjit
Kumar, learned senior counsel for the State of Gujarat
(re5pondent No.1 ), Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel
for Amit Shah (respondent No.2), Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior
E counsel for the CBI, Mr. Deepak Prakash, learned counsel for
respondent No.8, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel
for respondent No.6, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 and Mr. H.P. Rawal,
learned ASG for the Union of India.
F
· 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that her
deceased son .:.. Tulsiram Prajapati being a key witness to the
murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi, the team of Mr.
D.G. Vanzara, DIG and other officers of the State Police
G planned to do away him to avoid the interrogation by Ms. Geeta
Johri, IGP. The petitioner had also strong suspicion on the
conduct of respondent Nos. 6-19 and has every reason to
believe that her son h~.d been killed by them in a fake
encounter. It is also the apprehension of the petitioner that since·
H t~7 respondents/accused police officers enjoy powerful position.
NARMADA f3AI v. STAIE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 745
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
'.
in their respective States and they are trying t6 obstruct further A
inquiry in the matter, prayed for entrusting the investigation to
a specialized independent agency like the CBI.

· · , 9 . .Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the State .
of Gujarat and Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for 8
Mr. Amit Shah, respondent No.2, who, at the relevant time was
the Home Minister of the State, vehemently objected the claim
of the petitioner and by placing several materials submitted that
inasmuch as after proper investigation the State Police has filed
the charge-sheet, there is no need for further investigation by C
the .CBI at this stage. They further submitted that any such
direction at this stage would delay the entire prosecution.

Key: Issues:

10. Keeping the above submissions in mind, we have to D
first find out (a) whether after filing of the charge-sheet by the
State agency, the Court is precluded from appointing any other
independent specialized agency like the CBI to go into the same
issues if the earlier investigation was not done as per the
established procedure; and (b) subject to the answer relating E
to the issue raised in (a) whether the petitioner has made out
a case for entrusting the investigation to the CBI.

Analysis as to issue (a):

11. The first issue i.e. (a) as in the case on hand also arose F
in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh (supra). The factual details
therein will be discussed in the later paragraphs. With regard
to the similar objection as to further investigation by the CBI,
this Court·considered the following cases:

(i) Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC G
199
(ii) Union ·of India vs. Sushi/ Kumar Modi, (1998) 8
sec 661
H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A (iii) Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (VIII) vs. Union of India,
(2006) 6 sec 613

(iv) Hari Singh vs. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 733

(v) Aleque Padamsee vs. Union of India, (2007) 6
B sec 111

(vi) M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 407

(vii) R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P., 1994 Supp(1) SCC
143
c
(viii) Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi}, (2006)
2 sec 677

(ix) Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration, 1988
o supp sec 482

(x) Gudalure M.J. Cherian vs. Union of India, (1992)
1 sec 397; and
(xi) Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Asson. Vs.
E State of Punjab, (1994) 1 SCC 616

and concluded in paragraphs 60 and 61 as under:

"60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr
F Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
of Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the
court in the criminal proceeding it was not open for this
Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of
the case to be handed over to CBI or to any independent
G agency. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an
appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation
by the police authorities is not in the proper direction and
in order to do complete justice in the case and as the high
police officials are involved in the said crime, it was always
H open to the court to hand over the investigation to the
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 747
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after A
the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered,
in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to
an independent agency like CBI.

61. Keeping this discussion in mind, that is to say, B
in an appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand
over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI
even when the charge-sheet has been submitted, we now
deal with the facts of this case whether such investigation
should be transferred to the CBI Authorities or any other C
independent agency in spite of the fact that the charge-
sheet has been submitted in court. On this ground, we
have carefully examined the eight action taken reports
submitted by the State police authorities before us and
also the various materials produced and the submissions
of the learned counsel for both the parties." D

(Emphasis supplied)

It is clear, that in an appropriate case, particularly, when the
Court feels that the investigation by the State police authorities E
is not in the proper direction as the high. police officials are
involved, in order to do completejustice, it is always open to
the Court to hand over the investigation to an independent and
specialized agency like the CBI.

12. In the light of the above principles, now let us consider F
the second issue (b) viz., whether the investigation relating to
the encounter killing of Tulsiram Prajapati should be transferred
to the CBI in spite of the fact that the charge-sheet has been
submitted in the Court by the State Police.
G
13. It is the specific stand of the writ petitioner that while
considering the grievance of Rubabbuddin Sheikh about the
death of his brother Sohrabuddin in a fake encounter, the
present petitioner, mother of Tulsiram Prajapati also filed Writ
Petition (Crl.) No. 115 of 2007 and, the same was tagged along
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2007 which was filed by brother
of Sohrabuddin. The cause title of the case vide Rubabbuddin
Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 200 shows
that Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 115 of 2007 was heard along with
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2007. Though at the end of the
B judgment. this Court directed that Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 115
of 2007 be listed after eight weeks before an appropriate
Bench. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the CBI, the said judgment records that there is strong
suspicion that the 'third person' picked up with Sohrabuddin was
c Tulsiram Prajapati. It ,was also observed that call records of
Tulsiram Prajapati were not properly analyzed and there was
no justification for the then investigation officer, Ms. Geeta Johri
to have walked out of the investigation pertaining to Tulsiram
Prajapati. In para 65, the following observations are relevant:
D "65. It also appears from the charge-sheet that it identifies
the third person who was taken to Disha farm as
Kalimuddin. But it does not contain the details of what
happened to him once he was abducted. The possibility
of the third person being Tulsiram Prajap~ti cannot be·
E ruled out, although the police authorities or the State had
made all possible efforts to show that it was not Tulsiram.
In our view, the facts surrounding his death evokes strong
· suspicion that a deliberate attempt was made to destroy
a human witness." ·
F
(Emphasis supplied)

Apart from the above conclusion, after analyzing. several Action
Taken Reports filed by the State and various circumstances and
in view of the involvement of the high police officials of the State
G in the crime therein, this Court directed the CBI to investigate
all the aspects of the case relating to the killing of Sohrabuddin
and his wife Kausarbi including the possibility of a "larger
conspiracy"'

H 14. Pursuant to the said direction, the CBI investigated the
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 749
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
cause of death of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi. The CBI, A
in their counter affidavit, has specifically stated that as perthefr
. investigation Tulsiram Prajapati was· a key witness in the
murder of Sohrabuddin and he was the 'third person' who
a·ccompanied Sohrabuddin from Hyderabad and killing df
Tulsiram Prajapati was ·a part of the same conspiracy. It was B
further stated that all the records qua Tulsiram Prajapati's case
were crucial to unearth the "larger conspiracy~ regarding the
Sohrabuddin's case which despite being sought were not given
by the·State of Gujarat. ' · ·

15, As against the assertion of the writ petitioner and the
c
stand of the CBI, Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. Ram Jethmalani,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and
2 irespectively cited several instances ahd relied oh certain
materials to show that inquiry by the CBI is not warranted. They
are: D

· (i) Tulsiram Prajapati, as mentioned in the petition and in
the prayer was the sharp shooter of Sohrabuddin. He was co-
accused of Sohrabuddin in Hamid Lala's case and was taken ·
into custody only on 29.11.2005. Obviously, he had 'been E
absconding till then. In other words, he had been absconding ·
for nearly a·year before he was arrested. After his arrest, he
was lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur. While in custody; he and
two. of his jail-mates addressed a letter dated .11.05.2'006 to·
the Collector; Udaipur informing _him about the attack 'carried F
out on them in the jail premises and they were badly injured.
He did not even express a suspicion about any one who
planned the attack on him. He named seven persons who had
actually participated in the attack. In the said letter, he did not
allege or even suspect that this dangerous assault in jail had. G
anything to do with the Sohrabuddin-Kausarbi fake encounter
case or that he was being eliminated because he was a
witness of the murder of either Sohrabuddin or his wife.

(ii), On 18.05.2006, Tuls'iram Prajapati adqressed another
letter to the Chairman, NHRC, New Delhi. In this letter again, H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A he did not allege that he was an eye witness and that is why
he was afraid of being eliminated. He, however, did admit that
he is an accused in serious cases in the State of Maharashtra,
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. What he alleged was
that there was a conspiracy among the police officers of these
B States to knock him out. Even the NHRC did not draw any
inference. Ultimately, Tulsiram Prajapati was killed at about
8.00 a.m. on 28.12.2006. The scene of offence was within the
jurisdiction of Ambaji Police Station in District Banaskantha of
Gujarat. An FIR of this incident was registered on the same day
c within 15 minutes.
(iii) Till his death, no evidence had emerged that he had
accompanied Sohrabuddin about 13 months back i.e. on
25.11.2005 to Gujarat where the encounter took place on the
outskirts of Ahmedabad.
D
(iv) The order of this Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh (supra)
has been made under unfortunate circumstances without
hearing anybody except the State of Gujarat. It is the Union of
India and Amicus who is a law officer of the Union of India that
E wanted the investigation into the Sohrabuddin's case be
transferred to the CBI which had been fully investigated by the
State police and resulted in a charge-sheet as far back as on
16.07.2007. The main ground on which faults were found was
that the investigation was the alleged failure to identify the
F Andhra Pradesh Police officers and others who participated in
the abduction of the couple from Hyderabad to Gujarat leading
eventually to their being killed.

(v) Apart from the 13 accused who had originally been
charge-sheeted by the Gujarat Police as a res·ult of their
G investigation, the CBI, on 23.07.2010, added the then Home
Minister of Gujarat as accused No.16 and involved him in the
Sohrabuddin's murder case.

(vi) The CBI submitted two reports- Status Report No.1 on
H 30.07.2010 and a week thereafter, they filed the charge-sheet.
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 751
[P. SATHASIVAM. J.]
In pursuance of the charge-sheet, accused No.16-Amit Shah A
was arrested on 25.07 .2010 and released on bail by the High
Court of Gujarat on 29.10.2010. The order releasing him on bail
is subject matter of challenge in SLP (Crl.) No. 9003 of 2010.
The Status Report No.1, filed by the CBI before the Bench on
30.07.2010 informed the Court that Tulsiram Prajapati was B
abducted along with Sohrabuddih and Kausarbi and he was
handed over to the Rajasthan Police. There is no explanation
as to why he was not killed along with Kausarbi or Sohrabuddin.
After all, both were arch criminals jointly involved in several
murderous activities all over the country. When he was spared c
for 13 months and then disposed of during this time he had
every opportunity to disclose that he was an eye witness of the
Sohrabuddin's murder case.

16. By placing all the above details and further materials
both the senior counsel submitted: D

(i) By filing the charge-sheet by the Gujarat Police the State
· has granted the prayer which Narmada Bai has made in her
writ petition.
E
(ii) The persons whom she has implicated have all been
charge-sheeted by the Gujarat Police.

(iii) The conduct of the CBI does not inspire any confidence
in this case. It has become a party to a political conspiracy.
F
(iv) In the Status Report Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the CBI and
submitted before the other Bench, they have already reported
to the Court that the Sohrabuddin couple on their fateful journey
from Hyderabad to Gujarat were accompanied by a 'third
·person' and that 'third ,person' was Tulsiram Prajapati. This is G
a dishonest finding based upon some fabricated circumstances
which are capable of being easily demolished.

(v) The order dated 12.01.201 Ot in RL1babbuddin Sheikh
(supra) is contrary to binding authorities and' no credence or
H
752 •SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A value can in law be assigned to the two Status reports. The very
anxiety'on the other side that this should be handed over to the
CBI creates a serious apprehension about the impartiality and
independence of this agency. · ·

Analysis as to issue (b):
B
17 . Inasmuch as the present writ petition is having a
bearing on the decision of the writ petition filed by Rubabbuddin
Sheikh and also the claim of the petitioner, the observations
madE! therein, particularly, strong suspicion about the 'third
C person' accompanied Sohrabuddin, it is but proper to advert·
factual details, discussion and ultimate conclusion of this Court
in Rubabbudin Sheikh's case. Acting on. a letter written by
Rubabbuddin Sheikh to the Chief Justice of India about the
killing of his brother Sohrabuddin Sheikh in a fake encounter
D and disappearance of his sister-in-law Kausarbi at'the hands
of the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Gujarat Police and Rajasthan
Special Task Force (RSTF), the Registry of this Court, on
21.01.2007, forwarded the letter to the Director Genera.I of
Police, Gujarat for necessary action. It is further seen that after
E six months, the Director.General of Police, Gujarat directed Ms.
Geeia Johri, Inspector General of Police (Crime), to inquire
about the facts stated in the letter. A case was registered as
Enquiry No. 66 of 2006 and from 11.09,2006 to 22.01.2007,
four interim reports were submitted by Mr. V.L. Solanki, Police
F Inspector, working under Ms. Geeta Johri. In Writ Petition No.
6 of 2007, Rubabbuddin Sheikh prayed for direction for
investigation by the CBI into the alleged abduction and fake
encounter of his brother Sohrabuddin by the Gujarat Police
Authorities and also prayed for registration of an offence and
investigation by the CBI into the alleged encounter of one
G Tulsiram Prajapati, a close associate of Sohrabuddin, who was
allegedly used to locate and abduct Sohrabuddin and his wife
Kasurbi, and was thus ~ material witness against the police
personnel. He also prayed for production of Kausarbi, his sister-
in-law. After going through various reports, arguments of the
H
NARMADA BAI v. STATE, OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 753
. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] .
counsel for the writ petitioner and the State of Gujarat as well A
as Solicitor General for lndig, who appeared as Amicus
Curiae, this Court disposed of the writ petition by entrusting the
investigation to the CBI. Eve~ before the said Bench, such move
was strongly resisted by the State through their senior counsel
Mr. Mu.kul Rohtagi. B

18. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned sehior counsel appearing
for the respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition vehemently
submitted that the entire discussion and the ultimate conclusion
in Rubabbuddin Sheikh's'case is unacceptable and (10 reliance C
needs to be placed on it. He also submitted that respondent
No. 2 arid other police officials were not heard by the said
Bench before ordering fresh investigation by the CBI. It istrue
that in the said writ petition, on behalf of the respondents, the
Bench heard only the counsel for the State of Gujarat, however,
it is not the case of any one that the State was not given D
adequate opportunity before the said. Bench. As said earlier,
in fact, the State was repr~s~nted by Mr. Mukul Rolltagi,
reputed senior counsel and he put forth all relevant materials
highlighting the stand of the State. Inasmuch as all the police
officials of the State of Gujarat including the respondent: No. 2 E
in the present writ petition were part of the State in Rubabuddin
Sheikh's case, we are of the view that it cannot be said that
the same is not applicable to the case on hand. The following
conclusion in Rubabbuddin Sheikh's case are relevant:·
F
"53. It is an admitted position in the present case that the
accusat.ions are. directed against the local police
personnel in which the high police officials of the State of
Gujarat have been made the a.ccused. Therefore, it would
be proper for the writ petitioner or even the pyblic to c;ome G
forward to say that if the investiga~ion carried .out by the
police personnel of the State of Gujarat is done, the .writ
petitioner and their family members would be highly
. prejudiced a11d the investigation would also not come to
an end wi.t~ proper finding and if investigation is allowed
H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A to be carried out by the local police authorities, we feel that
all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may
feel that investigation was not proper and in that
circumstances it would be fit and proper that the writ
petitioner and the relatives of the deceased should be
B assured that an independent agency should look into the
matter and that would lend the final outcome of the
investigation credibility however faithfully the local police
may carry out the investigation, particularly when the gross
allegations have been made against the high police
c officials of the State of Gujarat and for which some high
police officials have already been taken into custody.

54. It is also well known that when police officials of the
State were involved in the crime and in fact they are
investigating the case, it would be proper and interest of
D justice would be better served if the investigation is
directed to be carried out by the CBI Authorities, in that
case CBI Authorities would be an appropriate authority to
investigate the case.

E 60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr
Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
of Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the
court in the criminal proceeding it was not open for this
F Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of
the case to be handed over to CBI or to any independent
agency. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an
appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation
by the police authorities is not in the proper direction and
in order to do complete justice in the case and as the high
G
police officials are involved in the said crime, it was always
open to the court to hand over the investigation to the
independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after
the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered,
in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to
H an independent agency like CBI.
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 755
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
61. Keeping this discussion in mind, that is to say, in an A
appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand over the
investigation to an independent agency like CBI even when
the charge-sheet has been submitted, we now deal with
the facts of this case whether such investigation should be·
transferred to the CBI Authorities or any other independent e.
agency in spite of the fact that the charge-sheet has been
submitted in court ..................................... ..

62. From a careful examination of the materials on record
including the eight action taken reports submitted by the
State police authorities and considering the respective C
submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties,
we are of the view that there are large and various
discrepancies in such reports and the investigation
conducted by the Police Authorities of the State of Gujarat
and also the charge-sheet filed by the State investigating . D
agency cannot be said to have run in a proper direction. It
appears from the charge-sheet itself that it does not reveal
the identity of police personnel of Andhra Pradesh even
when it states that Sohrabuddin and two others were
picked up by Gujarat Police personnel, accompanied by E
seven personnel of Hyderabad Police. It also appears from .
the charge-sheet that Kausarbi was taken into one of the
two Tata Sumo Jeeps in which these police personnel
accompanied the accused. They were not even among the
people who were listed as accused. Mr Gopal F
Subramanium, Additional Solicitor General for India (as he
then was) was justified in making the comment that an
honest investigating agency cannot plead their inability to
identify seven personnel of the police force of the State.

65. It also appears from the charge-sheet that it ideritifies G
the third person who was taken to Disha farm as
Kalimuddin. But it does not contain the details of what
happened to him ence he was abducted. The possibility
of the third person being Tulsiram Prajapati cannot be
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A ruled out, although the police authorities or the State had
made all possible efforts to show that it was not Tulsiram.
In our view, the facts surrounding his death evokes strong
suspicion that a deliberate attempt was made to destroy
a human witness.
B
68. From the above factual discrepancies appearing in the
eight action taken reports and from the charge-sheet, we,
therefore, feel that the Police Authorities of the State of
Gujarat had failed to carry out a fair and impartial
investigation as we initially wanted them to do. It cannot
c be questioned that the offences the high police officials
have committed were of grave nature which needs to be
· strictly dealt with."

A~er arriving at such conclusion, the Bench directed the CBI
D to jnvestigate all aspects of the case relating to the killing of
Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi including the alleged
possibility of a "larger conspiracy".

19. It is clear that the above judgment records that there
was a strong suspicion that the 'third person' picked up with
E Sohrabuddin was Tulsiram Prajapati. It was also observed that
the call records ofTulsiram were not properly analyzed and there
was no justification for the then Investigation Officer:-- Ms. Geeta
Johri to have walked out of the investigation pertaining to
Tulsiram Prajapati. The Court had also directed the CBI to
F unearth "larger conspiracy" regarding the Sohrabuddin's
murder. In such circumstances, we are of the view that those
observations and directions cannot lightly be taken note of and
it is the duty of the CBI to go into all the details as directed by
this Court.
G
. 20. Countering the stand of the petitioner, CBI and Union
of India, the State and other respondents projected the case
relating to Navrangpura which took place on 08.12.2004. The
scene of offence was the office premises of a firm called
H · Popular Builders owned by two Patel brothers - Raman Patel
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 757
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
and Dashrath Patel. Some unknown persons entered into the A
premises and they did not kill anyone but they fired shots which
damaged the computer installed in the office. An employee of
the firm, who was sitting on the ground floor, where the incident
took place, lodged an FIR with the Navrangpura Police Station
on 08.12.2004 in the city of Ahmedabad. The FIR did not name B
any one of the assailant, however, it was then discovered that
the FIR was substantially a false one and the suspects were
known and yet had not been named. As a result of fresh
discovery made during the course of investigation, it was Patel
Brothers who were ultimately charge-sheeted for filing a false c
case. The second case is Hamid· Lala murder case in Which
one Hamid Lala, a protector of marble dealers of Rajasthan
against criminal extortion by Sohrabuddin gang was shot dead
at a place within the jurisdiction of Ambaji Police Station,
Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan. This incident took place on D
31.12.2004. It is a fact that Sohra,buddin after committing
Hamid Lala's murder absconded and was not available to the
Rajasthan Police. Later, it came to the knowledge of the
investigating authorities that he had been hiding in a village of
Madhya Pradesh. In the Hamid Lala· murder case,
Sohrabuddin's co-accused were Tulsiram Prajapati, Sylvester E
and one Azamkhan. It was fUrther pointed out that one
Kalimuddin @ Naimuddin another,notorious criminal wanted. in
many serious cases was residing in the State of Andhra
Pradesh along with his sister Saleema Begum. They were
acting as informers of the Andhra Pradesh Police and they F
were under their protection. Saleema Begum was residing in
Government Railway Quarters. It was Kalimuddin, who seems
to have approached by somebody who invited Sohrabuddin
and his wife Kausarbi from their hide out in Madhya Pradesh
to Hyderabad. This happened in the middle of November, 2005. G
It was further highlighted that on or about 22.11.2005,
Sohrabuddin and .his wife Kausarbi left by a luxury bus for Sangli
in Maharashtra, Two tickets for the bus journey were purchased
by one Sri Hari. The bus was pursued by police vehicle, two of ''"·
them were in Tata Sumo vehicles belonging to the Andhra H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A Pradesh Police. They were driven by two drivers in the
employment of police being ordinary policemen. The Andhra
Pradesh police officers who sat in these two vehicles have not
been identified despite investigation both by the Gujarat Police
as well as later by the CBI. Sohrabuddin was done to death in
B an encounter with the police in the early morning of 26.11.2005.
In the eventual charge-sheet filed by the Gujarat Police on
16.07.2007 against 13 persons it was reported that the
encounter was a fake one. It is the definite case of the
respondent No. 2 that the preliminary enquiry was first
c registered on 27.06.2006. In the charge-sheet filed on
16.07.2007, the Gujarat Police found no evidence of any kind
to implicate the respondent No. 2-Amit Shah.

21. Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned
senior counsel pointed out that the Gujarat Police while
D investigating Sohrabuddin's murder case had conducted a
good part of investigation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
Andhra Pradesh Police, however, was determined to yield no
clue whatsoever about the role of the State police in the murder.
Ms. Geeta Johri, the head of the Gujarat Investigating Chief had
E interrogated the potential witnesses but she drew a blank. She
was not provided with more materials such as Vehicle Entry
Register for further investigation. The Gujarat police headed by
Ms. Johri had come to the conclusion that it was possible that
the couple was accompanied by a 'third person' and in all
F probability that person was Kalimuddin, who had succeeded
in getting the couple from Madhya Pradesh to Hyderabad and
he handed over the couple to the murdering team which
certainly included the Andhra Pradesh officers.

G 22. According to the learned senior counsel, from all the
details particularly, the charge-sheet filed by the Gujarat Police
which included even senior police officers as accused, there
is no need for further investigation by the CBI. Even otherwise,
according to them, the conduct of the CBI does not inspire any
confidence in this case. It has become party to a political
H
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 759
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
conspiracy and acting as subordinate police force of the A
Central Government in sensitive cases having political
implications.

23. If we analyze the allegations of the State and other
respondents with reference to the materials placed with the B
stand taken by the CBI, it would be difficult to accept it in its
entirety. It is the definite case of the CBI that the abduction of
Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi and their subsequent murders as
well as the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati are one series of acts,
so connected together as to form the same transaction under
Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. As rightly pointed out by the CBI, if C
two parts of the same transaction are investigated and
prosecuted by different agencies, it may cause failure of justice
not only in one case but in other trial as well. It is further seen
that there is substantial material already on record which makes
it probable that the prime motive of elimination of Tulsiram D
Prajapati was that he was a witness to abduction of
Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi. Both oral and documentary
evidence raise strong suspicion that the encounter was fake
and stage managed as predicted by Tulsiram Prajapati prior
to his death in a number of communications. We have already E
adverted to his complaint to the District Collector, Udaipur,
Rajasthan and representation to the NHRC, New Delhi. In both
the representations Tulsiram Prajapati highlighted about the
danger to his life. In fact, the NHRC forwarded his
representation to the Director General of Police, Gujarat for F
necessary action.

24. It is relevant to point out the letter of Shri V.L. Solanki
dated 18.12.2006 seeking permission to interrogate Tulsiram
Prajapati and Sylvester lodged in Udaipur Jail. With regard to G
the letter, Ms. Geeta Johri, Head of SIT, is alleged to have
recorded that even she may be given permission to accompany
the 1.0. for interrogation. It was pointed out by the CBI that the
letter of Shri V.L. Solanki containing the signature of Ms. Geeta
Johri was not found in the official file. In its place, it was pointed
H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 5 S.C.R.

A out that a fabricated note dated 05.01.2007 along with a noting
of Shri G.C.Raigar dated 06.01/08.01.2007 was found in the
file in which it was recorded as under:

"To go to Udaipur to interrogate accused Sylvester and
Tulsiram Prajapati (both being allegedly primary witnesses
B
in the case) of whom Tulsi was recently encountered at BK
by border range."

If we compare the note and the above record of statement, it
shows that each one is self contradictory, more particularly, the
C note seeks to interrogate the dead man. It also cannot be ruled
out that the stand taken by the CBI that as soon as the State
police learnt about the direction of investigation by Ms. Geeta
Johri, immediate pre-emptive steps have been taken to
eliminate Tulsiram Prajapati. The CBI has pointed out that the
D critical document is the note dated 22.05.2007 in the
handwriting of Ms. Geeta Johri which records as under:

"There is a systematic effort on the part of the State
Government supporting the police to tamper with
witnesses and evidences .... ."
E
It was pointed out that the words "State Government supporting"
are sought to be struck off and are substituted by "certain
agencies including" in place of "State Government supporting".
This was pointed out as a direct evidence of systematic effort
F of the State Government attempting to tamper with the
witnesses and evidences. The CBI has also pointed out that
Ms.Geeta Johri in her note dated 22.05.2007 recorded that

"... the Government may please therefore be moved to
G handover the case to the CBI for the purpose of meting
out justice to the petitioners and maintaining the image of
Gujarat Police .. ."

It is relevant to point out that the FIR recorded by the Gujarat
Police in Sohrabuddin's case claimed it to be an encounter
H death and it was only on the intervention and issuance of rule
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 761
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
nisi by this Court and filing of eight Action Taken Reports, the . A
SIT informed this Cdurt that it was a fake encounter and
identified the police officials.

25. Apart from the above vital information, it is useful to
refer that even after the transfer of Sohrabuddin's case to the B
CBI ori 12.01.2010, the Gujarat Police did not move till May,
2010. The first arrest in the Tulsiram Prajapti was made in May,
2010. Further, when the CBI laid charge-sheet on 23.07.2010
in Sohrabuddin's case, the State promptly concluded its
investigation and filed charge-sheet in Tulsiram Prajapati's case C
on 30.07.2010. It was also pointed out that this was done only
because after repeated requests the Gujarat Police handed
over the copies of notes, diaries i.n Tulsiram Prajapati's case
to the CBI in the month of May, 2010.

26. Another important aspect is that on earlier occasions,· D
Tulsiram Prajapti was produced before the Court in
Ahmedabad through video conferencing and he was removed ·
from jail on 27.12.2006 and produced before a Court, when
ultimately, on 28.12.2006 i.e. the next day, he was killed.
E
27. According to the CBI, the investigation has revealed
that Tulsiram Prajapati was the 'third person' accompanying
Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi on the fateful night of their abduction
and subsequent murders in the year 2005. The investigation
further revealed that after the abduction of Sohrabuddin and
Kausarbi, police personnel of Rajasthan had taken away F
Tulsiram Prajapati from Valsad on 23.11.2005. However, it was
pointed out by the CBI that he was shown to have been arrested
on 29.11.2005 at Bhilwara by the Rajasthan Police.

28, Nayamuddin Shaikh, in his statement dated G
19.02.2010, before the CBI has mentioned that they had gone
to see off his brother. Sohrabuddin, Kausarbi and Tulsiram
Prajapati from Indore bus stand for Hyderabad and that
Sohrabuddin had told him that they would be staying with
Kalimuddin in Hyderabad. The above statement of Nayamuddin H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A Shaikh is corroborated by the statement of Rubabuddin Shaikh
dated 18.02.2010 wherein he had stated that Nayamuddin told
him that from Indore, Tulsiram Prajapati, friend of Sohrabuddin
had also joined them for going to Hyderabad. Rubabuddin had
further stated that when Tulsiram Prajapati was brought from
, B Udaipur to Ujjain for court hearing, Tulsiram Prajapati had told
him that he along with Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi had gone to
Hyderabad and had stayed with K::ilimuddin in Hyderabad.

29. The statement of Azam Khan dated 26.03.2010
indicates the manner in which the abduction of Sohrabuddin and
C Kausarbi was planned and executed. Azam Khan, in his
statement had stated that he and Tulsiram Prajap1ti were
lodged in Udaipur prison at which time Tulsiram Prajapati told
him that on information given by Tulsiram Prajapati,
Sohrabuddin, Kausarbi and Tulsiram were abducted from
D Hyderabad. Among the entire statement of Azam Khan, the
relevant part is that Tulsiram Prajapati helped in tracking down
Sohrabuddin.

30. Learned senior counsel for the CBI, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi
E has pointed out that since the CBI had primarily conducted the
investigation in the case of encounter of Sohrabuddin and the
murder of Kausarbi, it has so far not launched a full fledged
investigation into the circumstances in which Tulsiram Prajapati
was killed. According to him, certain facts have come to the
F notice of the CBI only as part of "larger conspiracy" with regard
to which investigation was ordered by this Court and it was
pointed out that full-fledged investigation by the CBI alone reveal
further facts and lead to more direct evidence. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi
is right in claiming that the investigation in every criminal case
G is conducted on the basis of suspicion and reason to believe
and to apply the standard of proof beyond doubt at a stage
when a full fledged investigation is yet to be launched.

31. It is not in dispute that it is the age-old maxim that
justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The
H fact that in the case of murder of an associate of Tulsiram
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 763
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Prajapati, Senior police officials and a senior politician were A
accused which may shake the confidence of public in
investigation conducted by the State Police. If the majesty of
rule of law is to be upheld and if it is to be ensured that the
guilty are punished in accordance with law notwithstanding their
status and authority which they might have enjoyed, it is B
desirable to entrust the investigation to the CBI.

32. As stated earlier, it is the specific claim of the State
of Gujarat that they have conducted a fair and impartial
investigation into the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati, however, C
analysis of the materials which we have already discussed
show several lacuna on the part of the investigation by the State
Government. It is relevant to point out that much before the
incident dated 28.12.2006 which happened in village Chappri
in Banaskantha District of the State of Gujarat in which Tulsiram
Prajapati was allegedly shot in an encounter while he had D
opened fire on the police party, who was on the look out for
him to apprehend him, after he had allegedly escaped from a
running train while being taken back to Rajasthan from Gujarat
where he was stated to be produced in a court proceeding,
Tulsiram Prajapati lodged two complaints in written, one to the E
Collector, Udaipur and another addressed to the Chairman,
NHRC, New Delhi expressing the apprehension that he is likely
and going to be killed by Gujarat and Rajasthan police. In fact,
on 28.12.2006, Tulsiram Prajapati has been killed in the fake
encounter which has now being admitted to be a fake counter F
after a gap of 3 % years.

33. In Md. Anis vs. Union of India and Ors. 1994 Supp
(1) SCC 145, it has been observed by this Court that:

"5 ...... Fair and impartial investigation by an independent G
agency, not involved in the controversy is the demand of
public interest. If the investigation is by an agency, which
is allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility of the
investigation will be doubted and that will be contrary to
the public interest as well as the interest of justice ...... ." H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A "2 ..... Doubts were expressed regarding fairness of
investigation as it was feard that as the local police was
alleged to be involved in the encounter, the investigation
by an officer of the UP Cadre may not be impartial. ... "

B 34. In another decision of this Court in R. S. Sodhi vs. State
of UP. & Ors. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143, the following
conclusion is relevant:

"2 ...... We have perused the events that have taken place
since the incidents but we are refraining from entering upon
c the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we
think that since the accusations are directed against the
local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the
investigation to an independent agency like the Central
Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the
D relatives of the deceased may feel assured that· an
independent agency is looking into the matter and that
would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility.
However faithfully the local police may carry out the
investigation, the same will lack credibility since the
E allegations are against them, It is only with that in mind that
we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well
as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to
the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we do
hope that it would complete the investigation at an early
F date so that those involved in the occurrences, one way
or the other, may be brought to book. We direct
accordingly ...... "

35. In both these decisions, this Court refrained from
expressing any opinion on the allegations made by either side
G but thought it wise to have the incident investigated by an
independent agency like the CBI so that it may bear credibility.
This Court felt that no matter how faithfully and honestly the local
police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack
credibility as allegations were directed against them. This
H Court, therefore, thought it both desirable and advisable and
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 765
· [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the CBI A
so that it may complete the investigation at an early date. It was
clearly stated that in so ordering no reflection either on the local
police of the State Government was intended. This Court merely
acted in public interest. ·
B
36. The above decisions and the principles stated therein
have been referred to and 'followed by this c'ourt iri
Rubbabuddin Sheikh (supra) wherealso it was held that
considering the fact that the allegations have been leveled
against higher level police officers, despite the investigation C
made by the police authorities of the State of Gujarat, ordered
investigation by the CBI. Without entering into the allegations
leveled by either of the parties, we are of the view that it would
be prudent and advisable to transfer the investigation to an
independent agency. It is trite law that accused persons do not
have a say in the matter of appointment of an· investigation D
agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which
investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence
committed by them.
' .
37. In view of our discussions and subr:nission of learned E
counsel on either side and keeping in mind the earlier
directions given by this Court, although, charge-sheet has been
filed by the State of Gujarat after a gap of 3. Yz years after. the
incident, that too after pronouncement of judgment in
Rubbabudin's case and considering the nature of crime that F
has been allegedly committed not by any third party but by the
police personnel of the State of Gujarat, we are satisfied that
the investigation conducted and concluded in the present case
by the State police cannot be accepted. In view of various
circumstances highlighted and in the light of the involvement of G
police officials of the State of Gujarat and police officers of two
other States, i.e. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, itwould not
be desirable to allow the Gujarat State Police to continue with
the investigation, accordingly, to meet the ends of justice and
in the public interest, we feel that the CBI should be directed
to take the investigation. H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A Submission of Report by the CBI to this Court and
subsequent monitoring.

38. The other question relates to submission of a report
by the CBI to this Court and further monitoring in the case.
B Though in Rubabbudin Sheikh's case (supra), this Court
directed the CBI that after investigation submits a report to this
Court and thereafter, further necessary orders will be passed
in accordance with the said report, in view of the principles laid
down in series of decisions by this Court, we are not
C persuaded to accept the course relating to submission of report
to this court and monitoring thereafter.

(a) In Vineet Narain (supra), this Court held as under:

"In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is
0 made out and a charge-sheet is filed in the competent
court, it is that court which will then deal with that case on
merits, in accordance with law."

(b) In Sushi/ Kumar Modi (supra), this Court observed that
the monitoring process in the High Court in respect of the
E particular matter had come to an end with the filing of the
charge-sheet in the Special Court and the matter relating to
execution of the warrant issued by the Special Court against
Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav was a matter only within the
competence of the Special Court so that there was no occasion
F for the High Court to be involved in any manner with the
execution of the warrant. By relying on decision in Vineet
Narain's case (supra), this Court reiterated that once a charge-
sheet is filed in the competent court after completion of the
investigation, the process of monitoring by this Court for the
G purpose of making the CBI and other investigating agencies
concerned perform their function of investigating into the
offences concerned comes to an end; and thereafter it is only
the court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with
all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters
H falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code.
NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 767
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
(c) In M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India A
and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 110, this Court again reiterated the
same principle. The following conclusion is relevant:

"30. At the outset, we may state that this 9ourt has
repeatedly emphasized in the above judgments that in B
Supreme Court monitored cases this Court is concerned
with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty
by CBI and that this Court is not concerned with the merits
of the accusations in investigation, which are to be
determined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in C
the competent court, according to the ordinary procedure
prescribed by law........ "

After saying so, this Court concluded:

"34. We, accordingly, direct CBI to place the evidence/ D
material collected by the investigating team along with the
report of the SP as required under Section 173(2) CrPC
before the court/Special Judge concerned who will decide
the matter in accordance with law."

The above decisions make it clear that though this Court is E
competent to entrust the investigation to any independent
agency, once the investigating agency complete their function
of investigating into the offences, it is the Court in which the
charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating
to the trial of the accused including matters falling within the F
scope of Section 173(8) of the Code. Thus, generally, this Court
may not require further monitoring of the case/investigation.
However, we make it clear that if any of the parties including
the CBI require any further direction, they are free to approach
this Court by way of an application. G

Conclusion:

39. In view of the above discussion, the Police Authorities
of the Gujarat State are directed to handover all the records of
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 $.C.R.

A the present case to the CBI within two weeks from this date
and the CBI shall investigate all aspects of the case relating to
the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati and file a report to the concerned
court/special court having jurisdiction within a period of six
months from the date of taking over of the investigation from
B the State Police Authorities. We also direct the Police
Authorities of the State of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra
Pradesh to cooperate with the CBI Authorities in conducting the
investigation ..

.40. It is made clear that any observation made in this order
C is only for the limited purpose of deciding the issue whether
investigation is to be handed over to the CBI or not and shall
not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the
case. Though the petitioner has prayed for compensation for
the killing of her son, inasmuch as we direct the CBI. to
D investigate and submit a report before the court concerned/
special court within six months, depending on the outcome of
the investigation, petitioner is permitted to move the said court
for necessary direction for compensation and it is for the said
court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The
E writ petition is allowed on the .above terms.
'

D.G. Writ petition allowed.