Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

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