1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Writ Petition No. 2921 of 2009 With Criminal Application No. 426 of 2009 Shri Salil Anupendra Chaturvedi .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. with Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Bhagyashri Joshi i/by Mr. D.N. Salvi for respondent no.3. Mr. Prakash Naik with Mr. Subodh Desai for proposed respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ. December 05, 2009. P.C. 1. Not on board and taken on board as per the motion taken out by Mr. Mundargi to withdraw the petition, on 4/12/2009. 2 2. We have heard the learned counsel for all the parties and in the peculiar facts of this case, the petition could be disposed off, rather than allowing the motion to withdraw it. 3. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays for directions to respondent no.2 i.e. the State C.I.D., Konkan Region to cause investigation in Criminal Complaint No. 1 of 2006 filed before the Special Court at Mumbai under the N.D.P.S. Act and to submit the report to the said court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months. 4. The petitioner was one of the accused in NDPS Special Case No. 80 of 2008 and he came to be acquitted by the learned Special Judge as per his judgment and order dated 3/4/2009. However, while the case was pending i.e. NDPS Special Case No. 80 of 2008 before the Special Court, the petitioner moved an application which came to be registered as private complaint No. 1 of 2006 before the Special Court alleging that the narcotic substance was planted by some police officers in his house and he was falsely implicated as an accused in NDPS Special Case No. 80 of 2008, arising from C.R. 3 No. 17 of 2005. The learned Special Judge passed an order on 21/4/2007, directing the Zonal Director of Narcotic Control Bureau to investigate the allegations made by the petitioner in his complaint, under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. through a senior Intelligence Officer as early as possible. The Narcotic Control Bureau, though had received the said order, did not undertake the investigations through a senior Intelligence Officer and instead an application for clarifications was filed. The said application was decided and the NCB was directed to investigate into the complaint. About more than two years time had elapsed during the intervening period and it appears on the floor of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly some Hon’ble Members took up the issue on 13/6/2009 and alleged that the investigation as directed by the Special Court was going very slow and there was virtually no progress. The Hon’ble Members, therefore, demanded that the investigation should be handed over to the State C.I.D. It appears that the Minister for Home promised the Hon’ble Members and a decision was taken by the State Government to hand over the investigation to the State C.I.D., as is clear from the order dated 16/7/2009. By a further order dated 30/10/2009, the investigation was handed over to Shri K.P. Raghuwanshi, 4 Additional Inspector General of Police, ATS, Mumbai. 5. In the meanwhile the petitioner had filed Misc. Application No. 349 of 2009 before the Special Court praying for transfer of investigation to the State C.I.D., Mumbai and it appears on 13/10/2009 the Intelligence Officer, NCB, Mumbai also filed an application pointing out that the NCB would not be able to initiate the investigation till the completion of the investigation by the State C.I.D., in view of the decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra. The learned Special Judge on 20/11/2009 passed a common order on both these applications which reads as under:- “1. M.A. No. 349/09 is allowed. 2. U/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. instead of NCB, the complaint be referred to State CID with direction to investigate the allegations made in the complaint as early as possible. 3. NCB is directed to hand over the original complaint to CID, State of Maharashtra for Mumbai Zone and to submit report to that effect within 15 days.” 5 6. Serious doubts were raised about the powers of the Special Court to direct investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. either by NCB or by the State CID and it was contended that even if such a power is available with the Special Court, the investigation is required to be caused by the concerned police station and not by any special agency. In short, it was claimed that even if the Special Court was satisfied that there was a case made out to cause investigation in the private complaint, such an investigation could not have been handed over to any other special agency, except the concerned police station. At the same time, it is not in dispute that such an investigation could be handed over to the State CID by this Court in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, the State Government has already decided that the investigation should be handed over to the State CID and the petitioner also had moved an application before the Special Court praying for the same relief, which also has been prayed before us. So as to put the controversy at rest regarding the powers of the Special Court to cause 6 investigation through a special agency, it would be appropriate that in consonance with the decision taken by the State Government and the application made by the petitioner as well as the inability declared by the NCB on account of inadequate number of Personnel/Officers, it would be appropriate that we pass an order directing the State CID to cause the investigation in the private complaint of the petitioner. 8. Hence, we direct the State CID, Maharashtra, to continue with the investigation, as entrusted to it by the State Government, and complete the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably within six months. Undoubtedly, on completion of the investigation, the State CID shall submit the report to the Special Court. 9. Petition is disposed off accordingly. 10. Criminal Application No. 426 of 2009 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)