"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Supreme Court rules out CBI investigation in case involving NDPS substance sales

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court recently observed (Royden Harold Buthello & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors D.D. 28 FEB 2023) that the power to transfer investigation is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances where the Court concludes that no other option can secure a fair trial. This observation came during the hearing of two appeals involving the same parties and issue.

The appellants in the case sought direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation into certain FIRs and online complaints. Appellant No.1 was accused of selling psychotropic NDPS substance, due to which FIRs No.232/2020 and 255/2020 were registered against him by the prosecuting agency under respondent No.1. Appellant No.1 claims to be innocent, and appellant No.2, who is his father, has filed online complaints raising his concerns and seeking action.

Appellant No.1 is a qualified automobile engineer and an income tax payee, while appellant No.2 is a businessman carrying out various activities for the last 36 years under M/s Buthello Travels in Mumbai. Appellant No.1 also worked for his father's business and traveled to Odisha and Chhattisgarh for contracts related to mineral transportation. On 20.10.2020, four unknown persons visited Hotel Green Park in Talcher, Odisha, impersonating police officers, abducted and took appellant No.1 to Raipur.

The appellants claimed that appellant No.1, a qualified citizen traveling for business purposes, was illegally abducted, detained, and had a case under NDPS foisted on him. They sought directions from the court as prayed above. The respondents filed an objection statement denying the allegations and contending that appellant No.1 is apprehended and proceeding in accordance with the law for his involvement in the alleged offence.

The Court found no public importance issue requiring a CBI investigation in this case, and the defense presented in the criminal trial is the same as the appellants' argument. The charges have been framed, evidence is being tendered, and five officers specified by the appellants can now be cross-examined. The appellant No.1 will have the opportunity to present his case when the statement under Section 313 of CrPC is recorded and can tender evidence if necessary. The appellants can also seek further orders in the pending proceedings.

Supreme Court stated that the CCTV footage sought to establish the presence of four persons in the hotel in Odisha is not relevant since it only seeks to prove that the appellant No.1 was abducted by the said four persons. The five persons specified by the appellants can now be cross-examined, and any other orders regarding the same can be made at a later stage.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court observed that the power to transfer investigation is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances where the Court concludes that no other option can secure a fair trial. In this case, the Court found no reason to direct a CBI investigation, and the charges against appellant No.1 will be proceeded with in accordance with the law.

Royden Harold Buthello & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors

 

Similar News