Case: center For Public Interest Litigation &amp; Anr Vs. Union of India &amp; Ors

then Superintendent of Police, CBI, Mumbai. 26. According to the appellants, the said file is in continuation of Part I file which was meant to be sent to the headquarters. In the writ petition, it was specifically alleged that this Part II file was opened in the Anti Corruption Branch-II CBI, Mumbai sometime in March, 1996 itself and the same was segregated from the original file and withheld by some officers of the CBI with ulterior motives. In reply to the said allegation, the CBI filed a counter affidavit before the High Court verified by one Shri K. Surenderan Nair, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI Special Task Force, New Delhi, wherein in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it is stated thus : "So far as Part-II of File No. 1/636/D/95/AC/BOM in which Shri Y.P. Singh, the then Superintendent of Police-II, ACB, Mumbai Branch allegedly recommended that a FIR be registered and a Regular Case started, it was got checked up with Dy. Inspector General of Police, ACB Mumbai who has intimated that no such file is in existence in ACB Mumbai Branch." (emphasis supplied). 27. It is based on the use of the words "no such file is in existence" which made the appellants contend before the High Court that a deliberate incorrect statement was made by the CBI in its affidavit filed before the High Court with a view to deny the allegation made by the writ petitioners as to the motive of the superior officers of the CBI to suppress the contents of Part-II file opened by said Mr. Y.P. Singh, Superintendent of Police. The writ petitioners before the High Court in their rejoinder affidavit reproduced certain portions of the said Part-II file which contained the nothings of the senior officers of the CBI including the one dated 11.4.1996 of Mr. Raghuvanshi who instructed Mr. Nair to swear to the first affidavit of the CBI. Still when the CBI filed the first affidavit before the High Court on 19.8.1997, Mr. Raghuvanshi instructed the deponent of the said affidavit to state before the Court that "no such file is not in existence in ACB Mumbai Branch". When the rejoinder affidavit was filed, it seems the CBI was caught on the wrong foot and it tried to wriggle out of the situation by filing another affidavit - this time sworn to by Mr. Raghuvanshi himself wherein an ingenuous stand was taken that the intention of the CBI in informing the Court in the first affidavit by using the words "no such file is in existence in ACB Mumbai Branch" was to intimate the Court that no such file was available at the time of filing of the first affidavit. While examining this belated explanation of the CBI we have to bear in mind that the first affidavit of the CBI was, among other facts, in reply to the specific allegations of the writ petitioners as to the opening of and the contents of Part II file which, according to the writ petitioners, was being suppressed by the CBI from the Court. As a matter of fact, in para 18 of the writ petition, it was stated thus :- "Part-II file containing recommendation of registering a regular case in the matter was withheld by the then Joint Director, CBI Shri Mahendra Kumawat and was not sent to the head quarters." 28. While the CBI had to explain this averment made in para 18 of the writ petition, if really it wanted to convey to the Court as to the non-availability of Part-II file to comment on the above allegation, one would have expected the CBI to come forward with a simple explanation that it is unable to respond to the above allegation in view of the fact that the said file was not traceable instead of averring in the affidavit that no such file is in existence. The use of the words "no such file" clearly indicates that what the CBI intended to convey to the Court in the first affidavit was to tell the Court that such file never existed and it is only when the reply to the said affidavit was filed by the writ petitioners with a view to get over the earlier statement, the second affidavit was filed by Mr. Raghuvanshi interpreting the word "existence" to mean "not traceable". In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we are unable to accept this explanation of the CBI and are constrained to observe that the statement made in the first affidavit as to the existence of Part-II file can aptly be described as suggestion falsi and suppressio veri. That apart, the explanation given in the second affidavit of the CBI also discloses a sad state of affairs prevailing in the Organisation. In that affidavit, the CBI has stated before the Court that Part-II file with which the Court was concerned, was destroyed unauthorisedly with an ulterior motive by none other than an official of the CBI in cullousion with a senior officer of the same Organisation which fact, if true, reflects very poorly on the integrity of the CBI. We note herein with concern that Courts including this Court have very often relied on this Organisation for assistance by conducting special investigations. This reliance of the Courts on the CBI is based on the confidence that the Courts have reposed in it and the instances like the one with which we are now confronted with, are likely to shake our confidence in this Organisation. Therefore, we feel it is high time that this Organisation puts its house in order before it is too late. 29. Leaving apart the above observations of ours in regard to the CBI, having considered all the materials placed before us and the arguments addressed, we are satisfied that on the facts and the circumstances of this case, the prayer of the appellants to direct a criminal investigation into the deal in question by an appropriate agency, as prayed for in the appeal, cannot be granted.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]25. This leaves us to consider the argument of the appellants in regard to the conduct of the CBI before the High Court as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. Though the appellants have made many allegations against the investigation conducted by the CBI in this case, we do not think it is necessary for us to go into all these allegations except confining our consideration to the stand taken by the CBI before the High Court as to the existence ofFile No.1/636/D/95/AC/BOM said to have been opened by the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, Mumbai.According to the appellants, the said file is in continuation of Part I file which was meant to be sent to the headquarters. In the writ petition, it was specifically alleged that this Part II file was opened in the Anti CorruptionCBI, Mumbai sometime in March, 1996 itself and the same was segregated from the original file and withheld by some officers of the CBI with ulterior motives. In reply to the said allegation, the CBI filed a counter affidavit before the High Court verified by one Shri K. Surenderan Nair, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI Special Task Force, New Delhi, wherein in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it is stated thusof File No. 1/636/D/95/AC/BOM in which Shri Y.P. Singh, the then Superintendent ofACB, Mumbai Branch allegedly recommended that a FIR be registered and a Regular Case started, it was got checked up with Dy. Inspector General of Police, ACB Mumbai who has intimated that no such file is in existence in ACB Mumbai Branch." (emphasis supplied).It is based on the use of the words "no such file is in existence" which made the appellants contend before the High Court that a deliberate incorrect statement was made by the CBI in its affidavit filed before the High Court with a view to deny the allegation made by the writ petitioners as to the motive of the superior officers of the CBI to suppress the contents offile opened by said Mr. Y.P. Singh, Superintendent of Police. The writ petitioners before the High Court in their rejoinder affidavit reproduced certain portions of the saidfile which contained the nothings of the senior officers of the CBI including the one dated 11.4.1996 of Mr. Raghuvanshi who instructed Mr. Nair to swear to the first affidavit of the CBI. Still when the CBI filed the first affidavit before the High Court on 19.8.1997, Mr. Raghuvanshi instructed the deponent of the said affidavit to state before the Court that "no such file is not in existence in ACB Mumbai Branch". When the rejoinder affidavit was filed, it seems the CBI was caught on the wrong foot and it tried to wriggle out of the situation by filing another affidavitthis time sworn to by Mr. Raghuvanshi himself wherein an ingenuous stand was taken that the intention of the CBI in informing the Court in the first affidavit by using the words "no such file is in existence in ACB Mumbai Branch" was to intimate the Court that no such file was available at the time of filing of the first affidavit. While examining this belated explanation of the CBI we have to bear in mind that the first affidavit of the CBI was, among other facts, in reply to the specific allegations of the writ petitioners as to the opening of and the contents of Part II file which, according to the writ petitioners, was being suppressed by the CBI from the Court. As a matter of fact, in para 18 of the writ petition, it was stated thusfile containing recommendation of registering a regular case in the matter was withheld by the then Joint Director, CBI Shri Mahendra Kumawat and was not sent to the head quarters.While the CBI had to explain this averment made in para 18 of the writ petition, if really it wanted to convey to the Court as to theII file to comment on the above allegation, one would have expected the CBI to come forward with a simple explanation that it is unable to respond to the above allegation in view of the fact that the said file was not traceable instead of averring in the affidavit that no such file is in existence. The use of the words "no such file" clearly indicates that what the CBI intended to convey to the Court in the first affidavit was to tell the Court that such file never existed and it is only when the reply to the said affidavit was filed by the writ petitioners with a view to get over the earlier statement, the second affidavit was filed by Mr. Raghuvanshi interpreting the word "existence" to mean "not traceable". In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we are unable to accept this explanation of the CBI and are constrained to observe that the statement made in the first affidavit as to the existence offile can aptly be described as suggestion falsi and suppressio veri. That apart, the explanation given in the second affidavit of the CBI also discloses a sad state of affairs prevailing in the Organisation. In that affidavit, the CBI has stated before the Court thatfile with which the Court was concerned, was destroyed unauthorisedly with an ulterior motive by none other than an official of the CBI in cullousion with a senior officer of the same Organisation which fact, if true, reflects very poorly on the integrity of the CBI. We note herein with concern that Courts including this Court have very often relied on this Organisation for assistance by conducting special investigations. This reliance of the Courts on the CBI is based on the confidence that the Courts have reposed in it and the instances like the one with which we are now confronted with, are likely to shake our confidence in this Organisation. Therefore, we feel it is high time that this Organisation puts its house in order before it is too late.Leaving apart the above observations of ours in regard to the CBI, having considered all the materials placed before us and the arguments addressed, we are satisfied that on the facts and the circumstances of this case, the prayer of the appellants to direct a criminal investigation into the deal in question by an appropriate agency, as prayed for in the appeal, cannot be granted.