Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s ex‑parte appointment of a Special Officer was unlawful as it violated natural justice and was unwarranted because the police investigation was not shown to be improper, and therefore set aside the order.

Summary

Two young boys were found dead under mysterious circumstances in Barrackpore, West Bengal, prompting letters to the Calcutta High Court alleging police negligence and demanding an independent investigation by the CBI. The High Court, without giving notice to the State, issued a rule directing the Deputy Inspector General of the CBI to act as a Special Officer and conduct an inquiry. The State appealed, arguing violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and that the police investigation, though imperfect, was not demonstrably improper. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s ex‑parte order breached the rules of natural justice, that Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act does not bar a court‑directed CBI inquiry, and that there was no sufficient basis to replace the statutory police investigation with a parallel CBI inquiry. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointment of the Special Officer, allowed the appeal, and suggested that the State police appoint a senior supervisory officer to oversee the ongoing investigation.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court's appointment of a Special Officer (DIG CBI) without notice violated the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with a police investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 applies when a court directs the CBI to investigate.
Whether the appointment of a Special Officer was justified given the adequacy of the existing police investigation.
Distinction between "inquiry" and "investigation" under the Code of Criminal Procedure and its relevance to the case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1913
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(8), s. 190, s. 482, s. 491
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946s. 5, s. 6

Subjects

natural justicepolice investigationCBIspecial officerSection 6 Delhi Special Police Establishment ActCode of Criminal Procedurejurisdictioninquiry vs investigationex parte orderappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

256 l

B
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ETC.

v.

SAMPAT LAL & ORS. ETC.
c December 4, 1984
[P. N. BHAGWAT, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND RANGANATH
Ml£RA JJ.]

Code ofCrlm1'nal Procedure, 1913-Death under susplclous clrcumstan·
ces-Al/egatlon of murder-ln.-stlgatlon still in the hands of pollce-Hl1h
D Court appointing a Special Officer to inquire into the affence-Judlcia/ inter·
ference in l11vestlgatlon-Whenarlses.

"inquiry'' and "investlgation"-Difference beiween.

Natural Justice-Letter to the Chief Justice of High Court treated at
writ peti'tlon-Death under JUspicious circumstances-Allegation of murder-
High Court fssaing dfrection to enquire into causes of death-No opportunity
given to the State Police officers-Whether violatil'e of principles of Natural
jutlce.

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-ss. 5 and 6-Whether s.6
applicable when Court gives direction to C.B.I. to conduct an investigatron.

F The respondents addressed two letters to the Chief Justice of tho
Calcutta High Court reaarding mysterious death of two young boys I ving
in Barrackpore area near Calcutta allegioa, inter alia, that the local piOlice
was not conducting the investigation into the unnatural death of the two
•
boys fairly and properly and was trying to make it a case of suicide and
requested the High Court to order a thorough investigation into the incident
by an independent machinCry which would command confidence and be
G acceptable to the local police. A Sinale Judge of the High Court, before
whom the letters were placed, treated the two letters as a formal petitio_n
,
and, without giving notice directed issue of a rule to the State of West
Bena:al and other authorities to show cause why a writ in the nature of
mandamus may not be issued directing investigation in accordance with law
to be conducted over the unnatural death of the two boys. Jn the meanwhile
the Judge also apQointed Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of
H Investigation to make as inquiry and report to the High Court as to bow
•
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL 257 A

the two boys met their death. The appellants preferred an appeal against
the said order before the Division Beach which also confirm~d the order of
the Single Judge with the modification that the DIG, CBI will act as a
special officer. Hence this appeal.
B
The appellants contended (i) that the order of the Single Judge was
vitiated having been made in violation of rules of natural justice; (ii) that
the order wa5 also bad as the learned Single Judge had not cared to inform
~imself as to the stage of investigation and if there was any lacuna therein
and ho proceeded to act on certain assumptions for which there was no basis
or foundation; (iii) that since there had been no breach of duty, the court
had oo jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation which, under the law, c
was vested in the police au•.horities and therefore tbe directions given by
the Single Judge and upheld with certain modifications by the DivisiQn
Bench \'ere not proper.

Allowing tho appeal,

HELD: J. It is clear from the order passed by the Learned Single D
Judge that no hearing was afforded to the State Government or its officers
when direction to appoint the special officer in whom power of inquiry. was
to be vested was made. There was no basis at that stage to assume that
the contents of the Jetters as also the facts stated in the c:>lumos of the
newspaper had not been contradicted, It was the State Government or its
officers who alone could have authori tativeJy indicated the facts showing
whether tbe allegations contained in the letters or the newspaper report were E
true aDd if so to what extent or how the investigation was being carried on
and what stage it had retched so as to enable the court to come to a pr/ma
facie authorities were not discharging properly their statutory obligation to
carry out an investigation. But wten no notice was given to the State
Government and no opportunity was offered to themj it is difficult to see
how an ex parte order could be made on such an assumption. If the facts
stated in the letter or tbe writ petition are credible and there is such urgency F
that the ends of justice might be defeated by not making an ex parte order
• or giving of notice without ex parte order might lead to aggrevation of
oppression or exploitation or removal or elimination of evidenceJ the court
would certainly be justified in making an l!x parte order. But in the instant
case, there were no such circumstances at all and the court could have very
well issued notice to the respondents and tried to find out whether the"" e was
any necessity directing the appointment of DIOJ CBI to act as a SPecial G
Officer and requiring the police authorities of the State to extend arl possi·
ble help as may be required by him. [270C-H: 271A]

(2) The appointment of a Special Officer with a direction to enquire
into tho commission of an offence can only be on the basis that there has
not been a proper investigation. There is a well defined hierarchical ad ..
mioistrative set up of the police in the State of West Bengal as in all other H
States and to have created a new channel of inquiry or investigation is likely
to crll'\te •a imprcs5foa that everything is not well with the statutory agency
A 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 2 S.C.R.

and it is likely to cast a stigma on the regular police hierarchy. In tho
facts and circumstances of tho instant case and the nature of the order made
in view, the direction to appoint a Special Officer with powers to inquire
should not have been made until the appellants bas been given a hearing and
the court h!id the papers of investigation laid before it for bcin& prima facie
B satisfied that the investigation had either not been proper or adequate.
(271C-E]

(3) Under the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down the
procedure to be followed when report of an olfenco is lodged with tho
police, the power to investigate is vested in the police. Tho procedure
laid down in the Code is clear and definite. Investigation is a matter for
c the police under the scheme of the Code. Judicial opinion seems to bo
settled and there are several authorities of tho Supreme Court where inter~
ference by the Court into police investigation bas not been approved. There t
is however, residuary jurisdiction left in the court to give directions to the
iovestiaating aeency when it is satisfied that the requirement• of the law are
not being complied with and investigation is not being conducted properl1
or with due haste and promptitude. The court has to be alive to the fact
D that the scheme of tho law is that tho investigation bas been entrusted to
tho police and it is ordinarily not subject to the normal supervisory power of
the court. But in tho instant case, tho material placed belore the court did •
not justify an exception to be made to the rule indicated by the Supreme
Court and the appointment of a Special Officer was not called for at this
sta9e. (262D; 210B; 218H; 279A·C]
E Slat• of West Be.,a/ ,, S.N. Bosak (1983] 2 S'C.R- 52 S.N. Sharma
v. Bipln Kumar 71warl & Ors. [1910] 3 S.C.R. 946. Slat• of Blhllr v. J. A. c.
Saldanha & Ors. [1980] 2 S.C-R. 16 followed.

Kint Emperor r. Khwajo Nazir Ahmed (1944] L.R. VI referred to.

Bhogwant Sl"lh v. Co111ml1Slo#er of Po/Ice, Delhi (1983] 3 S.C.C. 344
F hold notapplicable.
(4) 'Inquiry> and 'investigation' are statutory terms defibed in the
Code. In the instant case whatever name the wort entrusted to the Special
. '

Officer be called, there can be no dispute that he was required to ascertain
facts from the witnesses and documents, if any, in rc1ard to the death of
the two boys: This process necessarily involved a fact finding inquiry by
G ordinarily tappin& the same sourc~s as the investir ating aa:ency was expected ,
to contact. This, therefore, 1 ecessariJy involved a duplicate investigation.
Jn view of the fact that there were two separate channels placed in active
cbara:e of iovestia:ation to be conducted contemporaaeously, confusion was
botnd to occur and working of the two channels at a time was likely to
prejudice the proper investisation makiog .be exposing of the truth buried
under mystery more difficult. Carryin11 this duplicate process was not likely
H to serve the cause of justice nor help in achieving the object for which it bad
been set up. The Special Officer was not to exorcise the power under s.S of
the Delhi Speoial Police Establishment Act 1946 and if ho wanted any real
WEST BENGAL V. SAMPAT LAL 259

assistance io the matter of investigation, it had to be carried throuab the A
police officers of the State Administration. This was likely to brina ia tuther
confusion inasmuch as the witnesses were likely to be contactee by the same
police office on more than one occasion·once in the coo' se of investieatioo
conducted by the police and again to meet the requirements or the Special
Officer. We are sure that the High Court never intended the cau e of justice
to be prejudiced and the serious attempt to find out the truth to be
aborted. [273D-F;·H; 274A-C] B
(S) While section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act
1946 would require the consent of the State Government before jurisdiction
under s.S of that Act is exercised by officer of that establishmen , \vhen
a direction is given by the court in an appropriate case, consent envisaged
under s.6 of the Act would not be a condition precedent to compliance with
the court's direction. Section 6 of the Act does not apply when the court c
gives a direction to the C,B.I. to conduct an investigation. In this view,
the impugned order of tho learned single judge and the appellate decision of
the Division Beach appointing DIG, CBI to inquire into the matter would
not be open to attack for want of sanction 11nder s.6 of the Act. [269B·D)

(6) In the instant case, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside
the order of appointment of the Special Offica and observed that the investi- D
gation carried out has not been quite satisfactory. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there is no necessity to take away the investi-
gation from the hands of the State Police machinery which is the statutory
agency. Tho court pointed out that though there are occasions when death
remains a mystery in spite of the best of efforts, it hopes that with an honest
attempt and since efforts made, the truth would be found out and tho police
authorities of the State would be in a position to givv a creditable account E
of themselves. The court also suggested that the Director General of Police,
West Bengal, will appoint a competent supervisory officer from the blgher
ranks of the State police with expertise in investigation to supervise the
investigation in the present case. [279D; 2821l-H]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
F
570of1983.

From the Judgment and order dated 27th September, 1983 of
• the Calcutta High Court in C.R. No. (W) of 1983 arising out of
Original Order Tender No. 1583 of 1983.
G
WITH
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cr!.) No. 2671 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27th September, 1983 of
the Calcutta High Court in C.R. No. (W) of 1983 arising out of
Ori~inal Order Tender No. 1583 of 1983. ff
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 s.c.R.

A Somath Chattetjee, HK Puri, S. Ghosh and VK Behl for the
petitioners.

Ashok Sen, Shankar Das Banerjee, DN Das and S~ri Narain,
for the respondents.

B KG Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General. RN Poddar Miss
Halida Khatoon for the Union of India.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATH MISRA, J. The appeal is under Article 134 ,
c (a) with leave from the Calcutta High Court and is directed against
the judgment of a Division Bench of that Court dated September
27, 1983. The Special Leave Petition is under Article 136 of the
Constitution and is also directed against the same decision. Both
these matters are thus connected and arise out of the incident
D relating to the death of two young boys of Barrackpore area near
Calcutta. This judgment of ours will dispose of both the
· matters.

Two letters, one by one Sampat Lal, respondent I in the crimi-
nal appeal and another by respondents 1 (a) to I (n), both dated
E June I, 1983, were received by the learned Acting Chief Justice of
the Calcutta High Court. The letter sent by Sampat Lal alleged
that two young boys by names Tirthankar Das Sharma and Sanjib
Chatterjee, living in Barrackpore area, were missing since the after-
. noon of March 2, 1983. Information was given at the local police
station late at night on the same day and wide publicity that the •
F two boys were missing but uo information about their whereabouts
was received till April 5, 1983. On that day it transpired that dead
bodies of two boys had been found from the railway track near
Pandua railway station and they had been disposed of by the local
police without taking any steps for their identification. Verification
of the photographs maintained by the Railway Police at Bandel
G
and the wearing apparel of the two boys kept at the police station
clearly indicated that the dead bodies were of the two missing boys.
The letter alleged that the parents of the two boys had approached
several authorities including the Chief Minister of the State. With-
out taking any serious notice of the matter, the Chief Minister was
a alleged to have made a statement to the effect even before com-
wl!sr JlENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.,) 261
petion of the investigation that it was a case of suicide. From the A
reports published in a Bengali newspaper it appeared that the two
boys had been murdered. The letter further alleged that the local
police had been threatening the parents of the deceased and other
people living in the locality. The local people were, therefore, feeling
insecure and had lost confidence in the administration. They wanted
B
that investigation should be conducted by an independent machinery
which would command confidence and be acceptable to the local
people. They also asked for adequate protection to be given to the
residents of the area.
In the second letter similar allegations were made but certain
details not given in the first letter were given regarding the incident c
and the following relief was claimed :

"Hence on behalf of residents of Barrackpore our humble
prayer to the Honourable Chief Justice is that the Govern-
ment should instruct some neutral organisation like C.B.I.,
to investigate in search of unnatural death and solve the D
mystery to satisfy the people of this area and the soul of
State. This is apparent from delay in investigation, its
incidents and in fl.ow of publicity that when some neutral
active investigation the reason of such death or who is the
murderer or what is the real mystery cannot be known
definitely. After C.B.I. or some such organisation con- E
ducts the investigation, we the residents of Barrackpore
promise to help them with heart and soul. Our humble
submission is that you may kindly accept our requests and
try to stop the police from this negligence in investigation
and also stop them from submitting motivated false infor- F
mations and also we submit that through neutral investi-
gation the real mystery should be exposed to our contention.
In case the police or some persons have some kind of
motivation behind this the Honourable Court may take a
' role to set a precedence by ordering investigation into
that." G
(Translated from the original letter in Bengali).

On June 6, 1983, the learned Acting Chief Justice directed the
letters to be treated as a writ petition and asked the same to be
placed before Borooah, J. On June 7, 1983, the matter appeared · · Jl
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 2 s.c.R.

A before the learned judge. Mr. Ghosh appeared on behalf of the
persons who had written the letters. Mr. Shankar Das Banerjee
appeared on behalf of Ananda Bazar Patrika, a widely circulated
Bengali daily from Calcutta, in two issues of which dated
May 12 and May 18, 1983 detailed reports about the inci-
dent on the basis of investigation said to have been carried by a
B
private detective agency known as 'The Secret Eye'. Borooah, J.
read the letters and the reports in the two issues of the newspaper,
heard Mr. Ghosh as also Mr. Shankar Das Benerjee and observed,
inter a/ia:
"When an unnatural death occurs or a prima facie case of
c the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to the
notice of the police authorities, it is their duty under the
Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct an investigation
and ascertain the cause of the death. Reading the letters
and the newspaper reports which do not appear to have
D been contradicted by any authoritative statement from the
police authorities, I, in the interest of justice, treat the two
letters as a formal petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution after dispensing with the necessary forma-
Jities ........... "
He ordered that a rule should issue to the State of West Bengal
E and other State authorities to show cause why a writ in the nature
of mandamus may not be issued directing investigation in accor-
dance with law to be conducted over the unnatural deaths of Tirtha-
nkar Das Sharma and Sanjib Chatterjee. He also directed cause
to be shown as to why a direction may not be given for production
F of all the records relating to investigation conducted till then. He
further directed :
"Pending disposal of this rule, I direct the Deputy Inspector
General Bureau of Investigation, 13 Lindsay Street, Cal-
cutta-16 to cause an enquiry to be made and report to this
Court by the 23rd of June 1983 as to how the two boys •
met their death. The police authorities of the State will
extend all possible help as required by the Central Bureau
of Investigation, and the Ananda Bazar Patrika will also
make available to the Central Bureau the reports submitted
to the newspaper by the Detective Agency."
ff :Qorooah, J. further directed the Superintendent of Police, 24
WllST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAT (Ranganath Misra, !.) 263

j Pargans, to issue necessary mstructions so that the proper protection A
may be given to the people of the locality ofBarrackpore and threats
would not be meted out to them. He prohibited publications
relating to the death of the two boys in any newspaper within the
State of West Bengal.
B
On June 9, 1983, an oral prayer was made on behalf of the
State of West Bengal for staying operation of the orders and on the
following day an appeal was preferred against the order ofBorooah
J. and the appeal was placed before a Division Bench consisting of
Mr. Justice Pyne and Mr. Justice S. C. Sen. Grievance was made
on behalf of the State of West Bengal that Borooah, J. had made c
his order without giving any notice to it and without finding out if
the investigation conducted by the police authorities under the law
was not adequate, and as to whether the manner of investigation
was such that it required the Deputy Inspector General of the
Central Bureau of Investigation at Calcutta to be appointed to
enquire into the incident. At the appellate stage on behalf of the D
State Government materials were placed before the Court in support
of its contention that adequate investigation had been undertaken
as would be expected in the ordinary course over an incident of the
type under consideration. Long arguments were advanced before
the Division Bench and the two learned judges devoted considerable
attention to the matter and wrote out two separate and lengthy E
judgments-Pyne, J. held that :

"I respectfully agree with the observations made by the
Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the aobove
case (Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi,
• [1983] 3 S.C.C. 344). I am also of the view that in the F
facts and circumstances of the instant case it would not be
proper for me to speculate as to whether the unnatural
death of the two boys was caused by suicide or murder. I
am, however, very much concerned with the question whe-
' ther the investigation into the cause of the unnatural death
G
of the two boys by the appellants is being conducted
fairly and properly and after taking all materials, evi-
dence and circumstances into consideration in accordance
with law ...... In the instant case the Deputy Inspector
General, Central Bureau of Investigation 1 is not called
upon to exercise any power or to investigate into any H
~64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 985J 2 s.c.it

A matter under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act or
any other statuts. In view of what has been stated herein-
before and in the fact and circumstances of the case, I
appoint Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of
Investigation as the Special Officer in this case. The
Special Officer will make the enquiry about the correctness
B
of the facts, allegations and inferences contained in the
reports of 'Secret Eye' dated 8th and 14th May, 1983, as
well as those· in the two letters of the respondents both
dated !st June, 1983, copies whereof are Annexures 'A'
and 'B' respectively to the affidavit of Bappaditya Roy
c affirmed on 20th Jnne, 1983 and in the reports published
in the two issues of Ananda Bazar Patrika dated May 12 r
and 18, 1983. I, therefore, direct Deputy Inspector
Generel, Central Bureau of Investigation to make neces-
sary enquiry along the line aforesaid. For the purpose
of making such enquiry and report Deputy Inspector
D General, Central Bureau of Investigation will be entitled
to take into consideration fresJ:l evidence, oral or documen-
tary, materials and statements, if any, offered to him.
The report of the Deputy Inspector General, Central
Bureau of Investigation will be submitted to the trial
E court within three weeks from date. The police authori-
ties of the State and the respondents will extend all possible
help as required by the Deputy Inspector General,
Central Bureau of Investigation in the matter of
enquiry ...... "
Sen, J. took note of the fact that no opportunity had been
F
given to the State and its officers by Borooah, J. before he made •
the order dated June 7, 1983. He also came to hold :

"In my opinion, in a case like this, an interim order
directing the CBI to make a report should not have been ,
G passed without giving a hearing to the State Governinent.
No case of urgency was made out at any stage. In my
opinion, an order of the magnitude of a CBI enquiry
should not have been passed without giving a hearing to
the State Government."

H Sen, J. took notice of the fact that allegations contained in the
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 265
.) letters had not been supported by affidavit before the ]earned A
single judge. He also took notice of the fact that the materials
said to have been obtained on investigation by the detective agency
had not been produced before the Division Bench and no affidavit
of any competent person had been filed. Only two affidavits which
came before the Division Bench were one by Sampat Lal and the
other from the law Officer of the newspaper. He, therefore. B
concluded :

"Mr. Chatterjee is right in his contention that not an iota
of evidence has been brought out in the two affidavits
that have been filed and also the two newspaper reports on c
1 the basis of which the interim order was, passed. CBI
enquiry into a matter which is already under investigation
of the State police is a very serious step. There must
be very strong legal grounds for ordering such an
enquiry."
D
According to Sen, J. the writ petition was not maintainable on
the strength of the two letters and the two newspaper reports.
Though conclusions of Sen, J. were very different from those of
Pyne, J., yet he concluded by saying :

"Under the order porposed to be passed, the CBI or any E
other agency of the Central Government has not been
entrusted with the job of investigation. It has been made
clear that the DIG, CBI is being appointed the Special
Officer and not the CBI. The Special Officer will be at
liberty to appoint his own staff for the purpose of investi-
• gation. The costs, charges and expenses will be borne by F
the respondents. There is no question of employing the
men and resources of the CBI for the purpose of carrying
out the investigation. The officers of the CBI are not
being entrusted with the police power or the police function
' in the State of West Bengal in any manner whatever."
G
"The DIG, CBI has already indicated his unwillingness to
carry out the investigation as directed by the learned trial
judge. Nobody can be compelled to be a Special Officer
or a Receiver against his free will and volition. The DIG
CBI is not obliged to act as a Special Officer of the Cour;
ff
166 Stlt>REMll CCtlRT llEPoRts (19851 :2 s.c.R.

A and if he is still unwilling to carry out the duties of a
Special Officer. he is free to decline it. Specific provisions
have been made in the order proposed. The parties have been
directed to mention the matter to the Court if the DIG,
CBI dec!iues to work as Special Officer. In that event,
some other Special Officer will have to be appointed. I
B agree to the order that is now sought to be passed by my
learned brother."
The Division Bench consisting of Pyne and Sen, JJ. granted
leave to appeal to this Court and the criminal appeal has in due
course been filed by the State of West Bengal.
c As already pointed out, the special leave petition under Article
f
136 of the Constitution at the instance of the State covers almost
the same field as the criminal appeal and, therefore, it had been
tagged to be heard alongwith the appeal. It is not necessary to
refer to any pa<ticular facts in regard to that special leave petition.
D
Though Sen, J. had indicated doubts about the maintainability
of the writ petition on the basis of letters sent to the Court, Mr.
Chatterjee fairly conceded before us that he would not dispute the
position that it is open to a High Court to entertain grievances
received through postal communication and register the same as
E a writ petition. Mr. Chatterjee, however, suggested and we think
that there is great force in the submission, that when such informa-
tion is laid before the Court, care and caution should be adopted
to ensure that the process of the Court is not abused or misused.
The Court should be prima facie satisfied that the information laid
before the Court is of such a nature that it calls for examination
F and this prima facie satisfaction may be derived from the creden-
tials of the informant, namely, what is the character or standing of
the informant or from the nature of the information given by him
namely, whether it is vague and indefinite or contains specific
allegations as a result of survey or investigation or from the gravity
G or seriousness of the complaint set out in the information or from '
any other circumstance or circumstances appearing from the com-
munication addressed to the Court or to a judge of the Court on
behalf of the Court. Where the Court is so satisfied prima facie,
the Court may not insist on the filing of an affidavit and may pro-
ceed to investigate into the allegations with a view to meting out
justice to the persona on whose behalf the communication is
W!!st BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 267
addressed. This would be so particularly where to insist upon an A
affidavit at the initial stage may lead to perpetration of injustice or
may give rise to a situation where from a practical point of view
the doors of justice would be closed to the poor and the disadvanta-
ged. We may, however, point out that where the Court is not so
prima facie satisfied, the Court may before issuing notice to the
B
opposite party, ask the lawyer appointed amicus curiae to contact
the informant and file an affidavit or a regular writ petition.
These are the different procedures which have been adopted by this
Court while dealing with communications complaining of violation
of the rights of the deprived and vulnerable sections of the com-
munity. Since Mr. Chatterjee, has not disputed the validity of the c
practice of registering of writ petitions on the basis of letters and/or
information received by the Court, we are not called upon to
examine this aspect of the matter any longer.
Mr. Chatterjee appearing in support of the appeal maintained
that under the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down the
statutory procedure to be followed when report of an offence is D
lodged with the police, the power to investigate is vested in the
police. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code'
for short) contains provisions regarding the lodging of information
with the police as also their power to investigate. It is maintained
that as soon as ;mch information was lodged with the police, action
E
as would be proper rn the facts of the case, was taken.
According to Mr. Chatterjee, all possible steps that could be taken
were taken without lapse of any time, Borooah, J. did not call upon
the State to produce the papers relating to investigation and with-
out informing himself as to what action had been taken on the
report lodged with the police, proceeded to make an interim F
• order which had far reaching effect. According to learned
counsel, the Court bad no jurisdiction to interefere with
the investigation which under the law was vested in the police
authorities had so long as there had been nc> breach of duty, the
Court had no power to intervene particularly when the mattter was
• still in the hands of the investigating agency. No opportunity was G
· given to the local police, or for the matter of that, to the State
Government, to produce the records of investigation. Thus, with-
out informing himself of the actual stage and position of the
investigation already undertaken by the local police, the learned
single judge proceeded to act on certain assumption for which
there was no basis or foundation. It has been the submission of H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19~5i 2 s.c.R.
A Mr. Chatterjee before us that the State Government was entitled
to notice before the impugned direction on June 7, 1983, was made
and the real effect of the direction being to disturb the investigation
by introducing a new channel of inquiry, the rules of natural
justice required that the State and the police authorities in whom
vested the statutory jurisdiction to investigate should have been
B provided a hearing. Mr. Chatterjee also canvassed that between
'inquiry' and 'investigation' there was a clear distinction under the
Code and while investigation referred to the procedure of collection
'
of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any other person
authorised by a Magistrate in that behalf, 'inquiry' referred to
inquiry other than a trial conducted by a Magistrate or a Court.
c The main distinction, therefore, was that inquiry was a magisterial (
process while investigation was the process of collectton of evidence
through the police machinery and the net effect of the impugned
order of the learned single judge was actually the setting up of an
investigating agency. Though in the order there was reference to
D appointment of the DIG, CBI as a Special Officer, what he was to
carry out was referred to as an inquiry. Continuance of investiga-
tion through two separate machineries-one by the agency of the
CBI and the other by the normal inveitigating agency of the police
was bound to create confusion and prejudice the investigation into
the truth of the allegations.
E
Mr. Ashoke Sen appeared for the respondents who had written
the letters to the High Court while Mr. Shankar Das Banerjee
represented the Ananda Bazar Patrika. Learned Additional Solici-
tor General appeared before us on behalf of the Union Govern·
ment. Mr. Sen and Mr. Banerjee refuted the contentions advanc-
F ed on behalf of the appellants by Mr. Chatterjee.
Before we proceed to closely examine the submissions advanced
by counsel for the parties, it is proper to clear the ground and
+
formulate the exact points which require examination. It is
certainly not for this Court at the present stage to examine and
G come to a conclusion as to whether this was a case of suicide or
murder. If as a result of investigation, evidence is gathered and a
trial takes place the Sessioas Judge will decide that controversy and
it may be that in due course such controversy may be canvassed
before this Court in some form or the other. It would, therefore,
be wholly inappropriate at this stage to enter such a question. One
H of the controversies which loomed large before the Division Bench
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 269
.J
of the Calcutta High Court was as to the appointment of the DIG, A
CBI to inquire into the matter in the absence of proper consent of
the State Government. That question bas not been recanvassed
before us and it has been accepted by counsel for all the parties
including the Additional Solicitor General that while section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ('Act' for short)
would require the consent of the State Government before jurisdic- B
tion under s. 5 of that Act is exercised by officers of that establish·
ment, when a direction is given by the Court in an appropriate case,
consent envisaged under s. 6 of the Act would not be a condition
precedent to compliance with the Court's direction. In our consi-
dered opinion, s. 6 of the Act does not apply when the Court oives c
a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for
the parties rightly did not dipute this position. In this view, the
impugned order of the learned single judge and the appellate deci-
sion of the Division Bench appointing DIG, CBI to inquire into
the matter would not be open to attack for want of sanction under
s. 6 of the Act. D
Four questions appear to survive for examination :
(l) Effect of violation of the Rules of Natural Justice on
the order:-
This can be sub-divided into two aspects:
E
(i) Whether the order of the single judge is vitiated
having been made in violation of rules of natural
justice ?
(ii) Whether that order is also bad as the learned
single judge had not cared to inform himself as
to the stage of investigation and iftbere was any F
lacuna therein ?
(2) What exactly is the role meant to be played by the
Special Officer and whether the inquiry contemplated
to be carried on by him would affect the investigation
which was being conducted by the local police G
authorities?
(3) Is it open to the Court to interfere with the investiga-
tion which is stiJI proceeding and what are the cir·
cumstances in which such interference, if any, is
possible, and the guidelines to be followed in such
matter? H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 2 s.c.R.

A (4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case
the direction given by the single judge and upheld
with certain modifications by the Division Bench was
proper?

As already point out, power vests in the police authorities of
B the State Government for conducting investigation into allegations
relating to an offence. However, the stand taken by the respon-
dents was that the Srnte Government and the police authorities
had not acted properly and the investigation was not being con-
ducted as required by law. As appears from the order of June 7,
1983, Borooah, J. directed notice to issue to the State of West
c Bengal as also to the other authorities concerned to show canse
against the issue of a writ. No hearing was, however, afforded to
the State Government or its officers when direction to appoint the
Special Officer in whom power of inquiry was to be vested, was
made. There could be no scope for appointing a special officer
D unless the statutory channel of investigation was found not to have
functioned properly. There was no basis at that stage to assume
that the contents of the letters as also the facts stated in the
columns of the newspaper had not been contradicted. It was the
State Government or its officers who alone could have authorita-
tively indicated the facts showing whether the allegations contained
in the letters or the newspaper reports were true and if so, to what
extent, or how the investigation was being carried on and what
stage it had reached so as to enable the Court to come to a prima
facie conclusion that the State Government and the police authori-
ties were not discharging properly their statutory obligation to
carry out an investigation. But when no notice was given to the
F State Government and no opportunity was offered to them, it is
difficult to see how an ex-parte order could be made ou such an
assumption. When we say this, we do not wish to be understood
to say that in no case an ex-parte order can be made by the Court
If the facts stated in the letter or the writ petition are credible and ,
there is such urgency that the ends of justice might be defeated by
not making an exparte order or giving of notice without ex-parte
order might lead to aggravation of oppression or exploitation or
removal or elimination of evidence, the Court would certainly be
justified in making an ex-parte order. But here there were no
such circumstances at all and the Court could have very well issued
notice to the Respondents line\ trie\i t<;> find c;m\ whet!ier there was
ff '
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 271

any necessity for directing the appointment of DIG, CBI to act as A
a Special Officer and requiring the police authorities of the State
to extend all possible help as may be required by him. We are of
the view that Borooah, J. should have issued notice to the State
Government, afforded a reasonable opportunity to it and its
officers who were already in sesin of the investigation to make a
B
report in regard to the action taken by them and after making an
overall judicial assessment of the situation, the need for appointing
a Special Officer should have been considered.

The appointment of a Special Officer with a direction to
inquire into the commission of an offence can only be on the basis c
that there has not been a proper investigation. There is a well
defined hierarchical administrative set up of the police in the State
of West Bengal as in all other States and to have created a new
channel of inquiry or investigation is likely to create an impression
that everything is not well with the statutory agency and it is likely
to cast a stigma on the regular policy hierarchy. We are inclined D
to agree with Mr. Chatterjee for the appellant that in the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping the nature of the order made
in view, the direction to appoint a Special Officer with powers to
inquire should not have been made until the appellants had been.
given a hearing and the Court had the papers of investigction laid
before it for being prima facle satisfied that the investigation had E
either not been proper or adequate.

The procedure laid down in the Code is clear and definite. It
may be that in a given case the Court on being prima facie satis-
fied from circumstances appearing from the record that the statu-
F
tory agency has not worked in an effective way or the circumstan-
ces are such that it may reasonably be presumed or inferred that
the statutory agency may not be able to discharge its function of
investigation fairly and impartially might reasonably consider
supplementing the procedure; but as we have already indicated,
there was no adequate material on the record for the learned single G
judge to be satisfied that the facts warranted appointment of a
Special Officer.

Borooah, J. did not describe the DIG, CBI as a Special Officer.
It is in the judgment of Pyne, J. that we find reference to this term.
ln his judgment Pyne, J. noted ;
272 SUPREl'lE COURT REPORTS 11985) 2 S.C.R.
A "In view of what has been stated hereinbefore and in the
facts and circumstances of the case, I appoint Deputy
Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation as the
Special Officer in this case."

(underlining is by us)
B
Having thus appointed him as a Special Officer, he proceeded to
indicate that the Special Officer will make an enquiry about the
correctness of the facts, allegations and inferences contained in the
reports of 'Secret Eye' dated the 8th and the J4th May 1983 as
well as those in the two letters of the respondents both dated ]st
c June, 1983, copies whereof are Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively
to the affidavit of Bappaditya Roy affirmed on 20th June, 1983, and
in the reports published in the two issues of Ananda Bazar Patrika
dated May 12 and 18, 1983. Sen, J. in his separate judgment made
it clear that under the order proposed to be passed, the CBI or
other agency of the Central Government was not being entrusted
D
with the job of investigation.
'
Investigation into the allegations had already been undertaken
and the papers which have been produced before us indicate that
the first information lodged with the police was a missing report
E dated March 21, 1983. Even when such a report had been given
contemporaneous steps were taken to trace the two missing boys.
the dead bodies were recovered from the railway track on the
following day and were inependently dealt with as the link between
the information about missing of the two boys and the two dead
bodies had not been established at that point of time. Autopsy
F was conducted in due course and as the dead bodies had not been
claimed by any relation, the same had been duly disposed of
through the contractor for unclaimed bodies. For the first time,
on 5th and 6th April, 1983 the link was established when the
relatives of the two deceased boys went two Bandel GRPS and
identified the clothes kept at the police station to be those that had.
.
'
"
G. been worn by the missing boys, and the photographs of the dead
boys placed the matter beyond dispute that the two young boys
whose dead bodies had been recovered from the railway track and
which had been cremated were the missing boys. The parents of
the boys met the Chief Minister on April 8, 1983. The Chief
Minister issued directions to the )JO!ice for pro!'er investi$ation,
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 273
J
It is stated that on April 14, 1983, the Chief Minister made a A
statement on the floor of the Assembly wherein he had Indicated
that the incident appeared to be a case of suicide and not murder.
This statement of the Chief Minister was subjected to a lot of
criticism in the columns of the newspapers as also in the body of
the letters under reference. In cours~ of hearing Mr. Chatterjee B
I
produced before us the official text of the Chief Minister's state-
ment. It appears that he had only said that the Investigation
carried on up to that stage appeared to indicate that it was a case
of a suicide. It may not be out of place to point out that the
Doctor conducting post-mortem examination had opined that it
could be a case of suicide. Obviously the statement on the floor c
of the Legislative Assembly was on the basis of that medical
report which was apparently available to the Chief Minister.
'Inquiry' and 'investigation' are statutory terms defined in the
Code. We were told in the course of hearing by counsel for the
parties that under the West Bengal Police Manual the terms have D
different meanings given to them. It is not necessary for our
purpose to go into the question any further. By whatever nall\e
the work entrusted to the Special Officer be called, there can be
no dispute that he was required to ascertain facts from the wit-
nesses and documents, if any, in regard to the death of the two
Ei
boys. This process necessarily involved a fact finding inquiry by
ordinarily tapping the same sourcess as the investigating agency
was expected to contract. This, therefore, necessarily involved a
duplicate investigation .

• The police had already commenced investigation into the
F
allegations. Under the patronage of the Ananda Bazar Patrika
the private defective agency had also started investigating into the
matter and as would appear from the two reports in the Ananda
Bazar Patdka and the materials now placed on the records of the
High Couft and this Court, some investigation had definitely been
carried out by the State agency. This meant that three separate
G
channels were put into operation almost contemporaneously.
. Over the activity of the private detective agency the Court would
ordinarily have no jurisdiction to exercise but in view of the fact
that there were two separate channels placed in active charge of
investigation to be conducted contemporaneously, confusion was
bound to o~cur !Ind working of the two channels at a time was H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 2 s.c.R.

A likely to pRejudice the proper investigation making the exposing of
the truth buried under mystery more difficult. Carrying this
duplicate process, in our opinion, was not likely to serve the cause
of justice nor help in achieving the object for which it had been
set up. The Special Officer was not to exercise the powers under
s. 5 of the Act and if he wanted any real assistance in the matter
B I
of investigation, it had to be carried through the police officers of
the State administration. This was likely to bring in further
confusion inasmuch as the witnesses were likely to be contacted
by the same police officer on more than one occasion-once in
the comise of investigation conducted by the police and again to
c meet the requirements of the Special Officer. We are sure that
the High Court never intended the ca~se of justice to be prejudiced
and the serious attempt to find out the truth to be aborted.

The next aspect to be considered is whether it is open to the
Court to interfere with the investigation which is still proceeding.
It has been conceded before us and rightly in our view, that investi·
gation is a ma: er for the police under the scheme of the Code.
Judicial opinion seems to be settled and we have several authorities
of this Court where interference by the Court into police investiga-
tion has not been approved. This question arose before a Division
Bench of three judges iu an appeal carried by the sarrie State of
E
West Bengal in the case of State of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak,(1 )
Kapoor, J. quoted with approval the observations of the Judicial
Committee in the case of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad,(•)
where the Privy Council obacrved :

"The functions of the judiciary and the police are com·
F
plementary, not overlapping, and the combination of
individual liberty with a due observance of law and order
is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own
function, always, of course, subject to the right of the
Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved
G under s. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give
directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case
as the present, however, the Court's functions being when

(1) (1963] 2 S.C.R. 52.
H (2) [1944] L.R. 71.
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 175

a charge is preferred before it, and not until then. It has A
sometimes been thought thats. 56lA (now s. 482) has
given increased powers to the Court which it did not pos-
sess before that section was enacted. But this is not so,
the section gives no new powers, it only provides that
those which the court already inherently possesses shall be
B
preserved and is inserted as their Lordships think, lest it
should be considered that the only powers possessed by
the Court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal
Procedure Code and that no inherenfpowers had survived
the passing of tha(Act."
The Court added : "With this interpretation, which has been put
c
on the statutory duties and powers of the police and of the powers
of the Court, we are in accord." On a finding that the High Court
had exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with the investigation, the
appeal of the State of West Bengal was allowed.
D
The question again arose in the case of S. N. Sharma v. Bipin
Kumar Tiwari & Ors.(') On this occasion the Court was called
upon to e~amine the scope of magisterial power. After referring
to the relevant sections, the Court concluded that :

"The scheme of these sections, thus, clearly is that the E
power of the police to investigate any cognizable offence
is uncontrolled by the Magistrate, and it is only in cases
where the police decide not to investigate the case that the
Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation
or, in the alternative, himself proceed or depute a Magis-
trate subordinate to him to proceed to enquire into the case F
The power of the police to investigate has been made
independent of any control by the Magistrate."

Then came the case of State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha &
• Ors.(') In a peculiar set of fact this Court was again called upon
to adjudacte upon the scope of judicial interference over investiga- G
tion. Speaking on this aspect of the matter, Desai, J. spoke for
the Division Bench thus :

(1) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 946.
(2) [1980] 2 S.C.R.16. H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 2 s.c.R.

A "There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of acti·
vity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment.
Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved
for the executive through the police department, the
superintendence over which vests in the State Government.
The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigi-
B lance over law and order(situation is obliged to prevent
crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed
it is its bounden duty to investigate into the I offence and
bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds
an offence having been committed it is its duty to coUect
c evidence for the purpose of proving the offence for the
purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed
and the investigating officer submits report to the Court
requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence
under s. 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On
a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the
D police function of investigation comes to an end subject to
the provision contained in s. 173(8), there commences the
adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether
an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the
person or persons charged with the crime by the police in"
its report to the Court, and to award adequate punish-
E
ment according to law for the offence proved to the
satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined
and we11 demarcated function in field or crime detection
and its subsequent adjucatiou between the police and the
Magistrate."
F The observation of the Privy Council which we have already
extracted were again quoted with approval, Desai, J. adding:
"This view of the Judicial Committee clearly demarcates
the functions of the executive and the judiciary in the field
of detection of crime and its subsequent trial and it would •
G appear that the power of the police to investigate into a
cognizable offence is ordinarily not be interfered with by
the judiciary."
__ (und~rli11ing ours) k
H This seems to have been the well accepted judicial opinion on
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 277
-)
the subject. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to a later deci- A
sion of this Covrt which has been relied upon by the Division
Bench of the High Court, being the case of Bhagwat Singh v. Com-
missioner of Police, Delhi.(') That case arose out of what is now
being described as the notorious bride burning incidents. Investi-
gation .had come to an end and a conclusion of the case being one B
) of suicide had been reached. At this stage the Minister of State of
Home Affairs in the Government of India (the case related to the
Union Territory of Delhi) had taken a decision to entrust the
investigation again to the C.B.r. A writ petition was filed before
this Court making allegations against the police authorities with
reference to the investigation. The conclusion of the investigating C
agency that it was a case of suicide was challenged. This Court
clearly indicated:

"It is not possible in this case, nor indeed would it be
right for us to do so, to enter into the question whether
Gurinder Kaur committed suicide or was murdered. That D
is a matter which is properly involved in the trial of a
criminal charge by a court possessing jurisdiction. We are
concerned here only with an examination of the question
whether, after being informed of Gurinder Kaur's death,
the police authorities conducted themselves as Jaw and jus-
tice required of them."
E

The Court after dealing with the material placed before it,
came to the conclusion :

"Two inferences follow irresistibly from the material before F
us. One is that the investigation by the police following
the occurrence was desultory and lackadaisical, and showed
want of appreciation of the emergent need to get at the
truth of the case ...... The other inference which disturbs
us is that the entries in the police case diary (set forth in
. the annexure to the counter-affidavit on the record) do not 0
appear to have been entered with the scrupulous complete-
ness and efficiency which the law requires of such a docu-
ment. The haphazard maintenance of a document of that

(1) {1983] 3 s.c.c· 344.
278 Strl>REME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 s.c.R.
A status not only does no credit to those responsible for
maintaining it but defeats the very purpose for which it is
required to be maintained. We think it to be of the utmost
importance that the entries in a police case diary should be
made with promptness, in sufficient detail, mentioning all
B significant facts, in careful chron.ological order and with
complete objectivity."
The Court concluded by observing :
"We have referred to some of the important features of
the case. We have done so not for the purpose of deter·
c mining whether the girl was murdered or had committed
suicide, but solely with the object of drawing attention to
the manner in which the investigation of the case was
conducted. Disappointing as it may seem to those who
have desired the institution of criminal action on the basis
that a crime has been committed, we do not think that on
D the material before us we can go that far. The investiga-
tion of the case was fransferred from the police adminis
!ration of Delhi to the Central Bureau of Investigation at
the instance, we understand, of the petitioner. We hope
and trust that this investigation has been completed. If not
E we would request the Central Bureau of Investigation to
complete the investigation within three months from today
and take such action as may be warranted by the result of
the investigation."

Nothing has been said in this decision which runs counter to
F the well settled proposition laid down by the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council and approved on three occasions by this
Court.·
The investigation in the present case is still pending as we were
told at the Bar. It is quite likely that some day, and we hope and
trust that there would we no further delay, the Court of competent
G jurisdiction would be in seisin of the matter and would be called
upon to decide whether it was a case of murder or suicide. We
have, therefore, thought it proper exercise of discretion not to enter
into the facts and express any opinion one way or the other so as
to prejudice the trial that might take place. It is sufficie~t to .indi~ate
that there is residuary jurisdiction left in the Court to give oirecllons
H
WEST llENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Rangonath Misra, J.) 279

to the investigating agency when it is satisfied that the requirements .A
of the law are not being complied with and in ·,estigation is not being
conducted properly or with due haste and promptitude. The Court
has to be alive to the fact that the scheme of the law is that the
investigation has been entrusted to the police and it is ordinarily
not subjeci to the normal supervisory power of the Court. We are
B
inclined, on the facts of the case as placed before us, to take the
).
view that the materials placed before the Court did not justify an
exception to be made to the rule indicated by this Court and hte
.appointment of a Special Officer was not called for at this
stage.
c
What then should be the nature of the order to be made in the
case, is the next aspect for consideration. On the conclusion which
we have indicated above, the appeal has to be allowed and the order
of appointment of the Special Officer has to be set aside.

Certain observations to our mind are appropriate and called D
for regarding further conduct of the investigation by the police
authorities. We must indicate also that the investigation carried
out has not been quite satisfactory. As already pointed out, the
Chief Minister had very appropriately ordered that a thorough and
careful investigation should be made into the unfortunate death of E
Tirthankar and Sanjeeb. Papers were produced before us at time
of hearing which indicated that pursuant to the orders of the Chief
Minister, the Home Secretary had addressed letters to the top
police officers conve~ing the serious concern of the Chief Minister
as also his direction that a thorough and proper investigation should
be taken up. From the materials placed before us, we have a fee- F
ling that in the conduct of investigation the police authorities have
been more concerned with trying to establish that the reports furni-
shed by Secret Eye as appearing in the issues of the Ananda Bazar
Patrika were not based on correct materials and that proper con-
clusions had not been drawn rather than into carrying on an inten-
G
sive investigation in an objective manner. It further appears that
as the police authorities during their investigation could not find
a11y clue to establish the kidnapping of the two boys, they formed
a tentative opinion that the two boys had committed suicide. This
was based mere upon suspicion than upon any clue obtained
during investigation. Once havin~ formed that opinion, it appears H
280 iJ985j I s.C.R.

k from the materials produced before us that they laboured to juftify
the same. The facts and circumstances leave an impression !n · "c ,.
mind that the investigation was channelised for collecting 111ate1·~.s
to support that view 1,nly.

It is indeed unfortunate that in spite of the missing report of
·B
the two boys having been properly lodged with the appropriate
police authorities and the fact that the two boys were missing hav-
ing been sufficiently publicised as ordinarily done, the bodies of
th: two boys were allowed to be cremated even before an attempt
for identification had been made. There is some material in the
c records of investigation indicating that two railway tickets from
Barrackpore to Pandua had been found in· possession of the two
dead boys and for non-seizure ·of those two tickets the Assistant
Sub-Inspector incharge had ·actually been suspended. It is indeed
difficult to understand why the Assistant Sub-Inspector should not
have seized the two tickets if they were found on the dead bodies
'n of the two boys, even if he felt it was a case of suicide. Assuming
that this fact of recovery of two tickets from the dead bodies of
the two young boys was true, a clue was available than 'that two
boys had travelled from Barrackpore and when this link through
the railway tickets was available, it is incomprehensive why the
. police officers failed to contact the police authorities at Barrac.k-
E
pore. If that had been done, there would have been a possibility
of the link being established particularly when the missing report
was available and the investigation of the case could have taken a
different turn.

F It is necessary that the investigating agency ·must disabuse its.
mind of the tentative conclusion that death was suicide.. Our say-
ing so does not mean that after a proper investigation they may
not reach the same .conclusion. All that we. intend to point out is
that .that conclusion should not have been the basis upon which the
investigation should. have proceeded. Nor had the stage come to
G
draw that conclusion without further investigation. There are
aspects which militate against the theory.of suicide. Normally one
would not commit suide unless ·there are strong and. compelling
reasons for it. Thus, ordinarily . there has to be a very pressing
motive behind every case of s.uicide. Sufficient material to prima
H facie establish the existence of such· a motive has not yet been
Wlist BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (ifonganath Misra, J.) 1Sl

brought on the record of investigation. Both the deceased boys A
were teenagers. Tirthankar has been pictured as a bright boy·
good at his studies and appeared to be responsive in nature-took
active interest in variou3 fields of life appropriate for his age. The
picture of Tirthankar as a disappointed and frustrated lover is
again not supported by much evidence. The reactions of human
mind have no ser form and it may be that Tirthankar was an
..' unusual boy full of sentiments and could have acted in an unusual
manner. But that cannot be a conclusion drawn either on suspi-
cion or on materials which do not readily fit into that theory. Even
if the view of the investigating agency in regard to Tirthankar's
motive is accepted, there does not appear to be any motive at all c
so far as his associate is concerned, except that as a loyal friend
he was prepared to act the way Tirthankar went. For Sanjeeb to
have chosen· to commit suicide the material collected till now seems
to be very weak. There hav! been rare instances where loyalty has
known no limitations but there is no justify material to credit
Sanjeeb as possessing such a rare quality. D

If suicide had to be committed it did not require the two boys
to travel to such a distance and die at an unknown place on the
railway track. The place where the dead bodies were fonnd was
not indeed very lonely and the apprension of being detected before
the attempt to commit suicide would be successful could not be
eliminated. The two boys were sufficiently grown up to be credit-
ed with logical behaviour. There has been a lot of criticism and
explanation advanced before ns relating to the mode of travelling
to reach Pandua. Some rnilway tickets were sold for Pandua and
there is conclusion as to "'.hether the sale related to two or 2!
tickets. The material relating to the time of sale is also not very
clear. If proper investigation is made and further attention is
devoted, it is quite likely that more material would come to light
on the basis of which one or the other of the competing explana-
tions for the death can find credibility and the investigation can
then proceed in the right direction. · G

There is another aspect to which we must immediately turn.
Affidavits and other materials were placed before us regarding the
investigation-both by the private agency, namely, Secret Eye, and
the statutory channel. The language used by the top police of!iers
282 SlJPRliME COlJRT REPORTS [1985] 2 s.c.R.

A in the official reports is indeed unfortunate. They have expressed
themselves not only in intemperate and improper Jauguage but
have even gone to the extent of being abusive in their approach.
The language used in the reply of Shri Debabrat Dhar, Director of
Secret Eye to the report is equally bad. The investigation conduc-
tep by the private agency as also official channel was intended to
find out the truth. While both these agencies were-or were
required-to devote their entire attention in unearthing the truth,
"'
they should not have got themselves entangled in a battle of words.
We indicate our strong disapproval of the attitude adopted by
both.
c
Public mind appears to have been greatly shaken and agitated
on account of the mysterious death of the two boys. This is an
event over which the people of the State are justifiably concerned.
They do reasonably expect the polic! authorities to concentrate
their full attention and by using the expertise at their command· to
D unearth the mystery and proceed on the basis of the truth discover-
ed by them. It is, therefore, necessary that greater candour should
be exhibited and the investigating agency should with an 'open
mind, collect al] the material available and then only eliminate that
which has to be discarded and retain the rest to be used for their
purpose. We are alive to the position that there are occasions
E
when death remains a mystery in spite of the best of efforts. But
we hope and trust that with an honest attempt and sincere efforts
made, the truth would be found out and the police authorities of
the State would be in a position to give a creditable account or
themselves.

' We do not think there is any necessity to take away the
investigation from the hands of the State police machinery which
is 'the statutory agency. We would, however, suggest that the
Director General of Police, West Bengal, will appoint a competent
G supervisory officer from the higher ranks of the State police with
expertise in investigation to supervise the investigation in the pre-
sent case. The police authorities will, we hope, avail of any credi-
ble/material collected by Secret Eye, if such material is made avail-
ble to the police authorities. We hope and trust that a determined
effort would be made by the State Government and its Police
H authorities to get at tho truth and in the event of this case appearing
WEST BENGAL v. SAMPAT LAL (Ranganath Misra, J.) 283

to be a case of murder, the murderer would be proceeded against the A
dealt with according to law. We are sure that the police authorities
would take it as a matter of challenge, rise to the occasion and by
their performance, justify their stand in these proceedings that they
were competent to investigate and there was no necessity of the
_ CBI being called in, as was done by the High Court.
B
In view of what we have decided, no orders are necessary in
the connected special leave petition.

M.L.A . Appeal allowed.

•