MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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