The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition filed by an Executive Engineer of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act relating to disproportionate assets, made it clear that the Court cannot direct the investigating authorities as to which documents they must accept, which evidence they should consider, and in what manner the investigation should proceed.
Making a specific observation in the matter, the Court stated that:
“The High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 528 BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct the investigating officer to collect the specific evidence or accept particular documents tendered by the accused.”
The said order was passed by the Division Bench of Justice Achal Sachdev and Justice Siddhartha Varma while dismissing the writ petition filed by Manoj Kumar Niranjan. In the instant petition, a direction was sought to ensure that the income-source documents submitted by the petitioner be considered in the vigilance investigation and that the pending investigation be completed within a time-bound manner. It may be noted that an FIR had been lodged at Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment) under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after alleged unexplained income of ₹14,37,427 was found during the check period 2012-2017.
In this regard, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy and held that micro-management of investigation is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court cannot tell the investigating agency to consider particular pieces of evidence or to focus on specific points. The investigating agency is independent, and the Court cannot control or supervise the investigation, as doing so would be equivalent to converting the judiciary into an investigating body.
While analysing the case, the Court noted:
“If the accused earlier was given notice/opportunity during investigation to submit explanation/document and he did so, the refusal by the investigating office to accept further/later documents does not normally violate natural justice or fairness, as the accused can produce them as defence evidence during trial (313 CrPC/ 351 BNSS, defence witness under section 243 CrPC/ 266 BNSS, documents under section 294 CrPC/ 330 BNSS).“
Therefore, the Court cannot issue a direction for including the documents again. The Court observed that the accused had already recorded his statement during investigation and had also submitted documents, and there is nothing on record to indicate that the investigating officer refused to accept documents. Hence, issuing a judicial direction for further inclusion of documents does not arise.
Only in extraordinary circumstances where refusal to accept documents causes miscarriage of justice, involves clear mala fide or arbitrariness, or appears to violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution can the Court intervene in a limited capacity by issuing directions to consider the material evidence or to conduct limited further inquiry.
Finally, the Court stated that “The disproportionate asset cases under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are evidence intensive.” The prosecution has to prove the illegal assets, while the accused can explain the sources of income during trial through documentary evidence, statement under Section 313, defence witnesses or other documents. Moreover, the request of the petitioner for time-bound completion of the investigation was rejected on the ground that the accused himself had been interfering in the progress of investigation by repeatedly submitting representations, and therefore issuing such directions would amount to unwarranted interference in the investigation.
Thus, the Court held that there is no requirement for judicial interference in the matter. The petition is baseless and liable to be dismissed.
Case: Manoj Kumar Niranjan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
