Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

 

Latest Legal News