India is a country full of diversities not only from the cultural and social point of view but also when we look into the investigation and enquiries conducted by the Investigating Agencies giving rise to diverse Judicial Precedents and thus affirming the need to reform the present provision of Investigation by Investigation Agencies to reform a need of time.
In the light of the recent scams, most importantly the Vyapam Scam which rocked the state of Madhya Pradesh as the involvement of high and low everybody in it, Not even bearing the governor of Madhya Pradesh as the police had to ask for the permission from the court to inquire him about the scam which has been rooted into so deep the wrath of which has claimed 74 lives not even bearing the son of governor himself. The wrath of which is also coming to Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and the court has to order CBI Investigation under the Law. In we have witnessed Gujarat riots and not to be forgotten Bofors scam which has shocked the mandate of the voting individuals time and again.
The Supreme Courts and the High Courts have power to send the matter for CBI Investigation under Articles 226 & 32 of the constitution and Section 482, Cr PC. Power of Superior Courts to order CBI Investigation without the consent of State is valid in Law. This has been re-affirmed that the High Court in appropriate cases can direct investigation by the CBI but it must be done in exceptional and rare cases.
The officer incharge of the police station can also work with the CBI officials if need be so arise in the case. If the power of a Magistrate to order investigation by the CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be traced in the provision, it is not possible to trace such power in any other provision of the code. What is contained in sub- section (3) of Section 156 is the power to order the investigation referred to in Sub- section (1) because words “order such an investigation as above mentioned” in Sub- Section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub- section. Thus the power is to order an “officer-in-charge of a police station” to conduct investigation.
It is high time that the State Vigilance Department as well as the CBI made an in- depth study into the above aspects and came out with a full- proof and legally sustainable “investigation structure” which does not run counter to the provision in the Cr PC or in any manner interfere with the functional autonomy of the officer who is actually conducting the investigation. The above investigating agencies exist for serving the aggrieved and thereby serving the community at large, rather than serving their own masters who need not necessarily be free from other extraneous pressures and considerations. No civilized society can afford to stake the credibility and impartiality of premier investigating agencies which are the ultimate bodies which the Government, Constitutional Courts and above all, the unsuspecting public can look to for a faultless and impartial investigation.
Not to leave the sociological aspect of the CBI investigation in the life of people at large when personal loss is caused to the individual. In the instant case where a son in the prime of its youth, was murdered and the result of the investigation was not an accordance with the provisions of the Code, the High Court forced an interim order directing the CBI to investigate the cause of unnatural death.
The above cases clearly show that there is an urgent need to look into the provisions of investigation by the investigating agencies and giving more power to the investigating agencies to be able to conduct investigation in fair and reasonable manner to aid to avoid the drainage of hard- earned money of the people of India in the useless avenues and be diverted to the path of the progress of the Country.
The Apex Court has in recent years has laid down precedent in the cases where the CBI enquiry cannot be directed on flimsy grounds. In the instant where it was alleged that there was case of murder but it was not registered by the police there the High Court directed the registration of case but refused the CBI enquiry. In action or delayed action on the part of the police has definite bearing on the result of the case. In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner has made serious allegations of brutal murder by Mr. Rachaiah and others. Case was not even registered. It is only when this court took serious view of the matter, a case was registered. Now a charge sheet is filed. In the light of the subsequent filing of the charge sheet, this court is of the view that a definite case as such is not made out for CBI enquiry.
The above discussion also shows that the want of investigation by superior courts by the CBI in much hyped cases has become precedent in recent times. This trend shows that the police investigation has to be revamped and given a meaningful purpose so as to reduce the time and resources wasted in moving the file from one table to another causing inconvenience to the people at large. Thus wasting the time of already over- burdened courts in India.
 Saral Nanthyal v. State of Uttaranchal, 2006 Cr. LJ 1713 (Utt)
 State of West Bengal & others versus The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & others.
 Vimal Ashok Thakre v. Incharge, Police Station Officer, Nagpur, 2011 Cr. LJ 139 (Bom)
 Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001 Cr. LJ 968 (SC).
 Anthony Cardoza v. State of Kerala, 2011 Cr. LJ 2107: (2011) 1 Ker LT 946 (Ker).
 Kishan Jahan v. State of West Bengal 2008 Cr. LJ 1766 (Cal).
 Sri Nanjaiah v. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 Cr. LJ 3289, Karnataka High Court.
Back to List