Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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