SC: High Court Should Not Interfere In Cases Where Investigation Is Still Incomplete.

Condition of Tamil Nadu V. S Martin And so forth. [ CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 423-424 OF 2018]

The Supreme Courtroom on 28th March, 2018 directed the Large Courts to avert them selves from interfering in issues which are continue to beneath investigation and on prime facie investigation appear to be a circumstance exactly where authorized wrongs appear to have been fully commited. This choice of the Supreme Courtroom arrived in the circumstance of Condition of Tamilnadu V. S Martin And so forth.

The present circumstance was dependent on a FIR which inter alia said that the informant had gained data that several crores of unaccounted dollars was stashed in the house of accused-1, Nagarajan pursuant to which a raid was carried out and income amounting to Rs.7,20,05,000/- stored in three bags was found. The FIR further observed that said accused No.1 Nagarajan had admitted that he and his associates, particularly, Accused No.2 Martin and Accused No.3 Murthy had illegally printed lottery tickets of the States of Sikkim, Kerala and Maharashtra and bought the identical with out obtaining any authorization and in the system had amassed great earnings and the income in problem represented the identical. Rs 50 lakhs in income were also seized from the house of Accused No. 3 Murthy. A-1 Nagaraj was straight away arrested and Crime No.304/2012 was registered beneath Sections 294(A), 420 and 120(b) IPC and the circumstance was forwarded for investigation.

When the make any difference was continue to beneath investigation, Crl.O.P. Nos.13106/2013 and 14971/2013 were submitted on 21.05.2013 and 11.06.2013 respectively, praying inter alia quashing of aforesaid Crime No. 304 of 2012. A prevalent counter affidavit dt. 25.06.2013 refuting all substance allegations was submitted by Assistant Commissioner of Police on behalf of Condition of Tamil Nadu. It was submitted, inter alia that the unregistered agreement dated 02.03.2012 was on a stamp paper which was issued by the Condition Authorities to the stamp vendor on 09.03.2012 and the identical was bought to a person Vimla on 13.03.3012. It was further submitted that the lottery tickets recovered for the duration of investigation were sent to the respective Condition Governments to look at no matter whether they were legitimate and the report was continue to awaited. The counter affidavit further submitted that the investigation was continue to incomplete.

The Large Courtroom by its judgment and purchase dated 15.10.2014 allowed said Crl. O.P. Nos. 13106/2013 and 14971/2013 and quashed Crime No.304 of 2012 in its entirety.

The Condition of Tamilnadu had appealed in opposition to choice of the Large Courtroom right before the Supreme Courtroom of India.

The apex court docket in its judgment said “In our look at the assessment produced by the Large Courtroom at a phase when the investigation was nevertheless to be finished, is absolutely incorrect and uncalled for. Presence of two important specifics was more than enough to enable the investigation go on, particularly, recovery of enormous total of income of Rs.7.2 crores from the house of a person of the accused and that these types of recovery was accepted by the accused. The clarification provided by them about the alleged transaction of agreement of sale and receipt of income in pursuance thereof does not prima facie seem to be appropriate. The agreement is said to have been entered on 02.03.2012 although the stamp paper in problem was issued by the applicable department on 09.03.2012 to the vendor which was later on bought to woman named Vimla on 13.3.2012. No matter whether the possession of enormous income amounting to Rs. 7.2 crores can be described by the accused and no matter whether these types of clarification be accepted or not, are all issues which will be absent into at the applicable phase in the proceedings. The investigation in any circumstance should not to have been established at naught but it should to have been permitted to be taken to its logical summary.”

The court docket did not specific any opinion on merits or demerits of either the circumstance of the prosecution or the defence of the accused but said that it was of the firm opinion that although the investigation was continue to incomplete, the Large Courtroom should not to have interfered in the present circumstance. Leaving all issues open up to be agitated at ideal phases in the proceeding, the court docket  set aside the look at taken by the Large Courtroom and allowed these appeals.