Corruption - The Legal Chamber

Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done: Supreme Court Allows Investigation into CBI Officers’ Conduct

27Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done: Supreme Court Allows Investigation into CBI Officers’ Conduct

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to register an FIR, ruling that if a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the police are mandatorily obligated to register it under Section 154 CrPC. A preliminary inquiry report cannot oust this statutory duty or the constitutional court's power to direct an investigation, as its findings are not conclusive. The veracity of the allegations must be tested through a proper investigation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two separate writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal. They sought directions for the registration of an FIR against two CBI officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar, alleging serious misconduct. The allegations against the officers included t...

Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot act as appellate authorities to re-examine evidence. Interference is permissible only for procedural illegality, natural justice violations, or manifest perversity, not to reassess the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ramadhar Sao, was employed as a messenger (a Class-IV employee) with the State Bank of India. In 2008, the Bank received complaints alleging he acted as a middleman, taking bribes from customers to facilitate the sanction and disbursement of loans. A chargesheet was issued against him in 2010, accusing him of misconduct for acting as a conduit fo...

CBI vs. Accused: Supreme Court Rules on Discharge in Cotton MSP Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the trial court and High Court erred in discharging the accused under Section 239 CrPC by relying on defence-produced documents (CCI’s exoneration letter) at the pre-trial stage. Reiterating Debendra Nath Padhi, it ruled that only prosecution material under Section 173 CrPC can be considered for discharge, not extraneous evidence. The Court emphasized that discharge requires examining whether the chargesheet discloses a prima facie case, without evaluating defence merits. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 239 CrPC, barring reliance on non-prosecution documents. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a criminal conspiracy where Rayapati Subba Rao (A-1), a Cotton Purchase Officer (CPO) of Cotton Corporation of India (CCI), Guntur, alleg...