P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. This appeal against the order in the original proceeding before this Court in W.P. No. 14454 of 1993 is being disposed of at the stage of admission, but not before we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh and before getting from the State Government information as to the latest position of the investigation and materials collected by the police and after satisfying ourselves that a positive order can be made by us for filing of the report by the Investigating Officer in the capacity of the officer-in-charge of Puttaparthi Police Station under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The facts of the case are :
The petitioner-appellant herein, it appears, has the satisfaction of the honorific of being the Convenor of the Indian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal which is, as he has claimed, a co-operating member of CSICDP (Only abbreviation is available) registered in United States and having co-operating committees all over the world. To borrow the words of the petitioner-appellant, 'The members of the Indian Committee are engaged in dispelling the superstitious and blind beliefs that have gripped the society in India and the world at large. That as a tribute to my exemplary contribution made for the development of the scientific temper, humanism, and the concept of enquiry and reform as enshrined in the Directive Principles of the Constitution, I was awarded a Fellowship by the National Council of Science and Technology Communication (NCSTC) at New Delhi.' The petitioner has described himself in more details than necessary as a philanthropist of national eminence, attained mastery over 1500 miracles - psychic phenomena a feat for which he was interviewed by the Television network the world over, is the moving spirit behind Jan Vigyan Jatha sponsored by NCSTC Network, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, and hence, 'As a person concerned with the Scientific Investigation and having locus standi ..... file ..... writ petition as a public interest litigation.' He has sought to challenge, 'The dubious investigation that is being currently conducted by the police officials of the Andhra Pradesh i.e., respondents 4 to 6 herein over the incident which took place on 6th June of 1993 at about 10.30 P.M. at the Prashanti Nilayam, Puttaparti, Anantapur District which is otherwise known as the Abode of Peace and also the permanent hermitage of a self-styled God-man, more commonly known as Sri Satya Sai Baba, wherein 6 inmates of the aforesaid ashram were brutally gunned down to death under the most shocking and mysterious circumstances.' The petitioner-appellant has devoted quite a few paragraphs of the affidavit to Puttaparthi Satya Sai Baba and used terms which appeared to call him names and accuse him of acts which, if accepted, legitimatise the accusations of heinous offences including murder, cheating, smuggling etc. This he has chosen to do notwithstanding his own admission in the petition that he had tried all these in W.P. No. 9796 of 1986 and this Court had found no merit therein and his appeal W.A. No. 1255 of 1986 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31-10-1986. The petitioner is sour about high dignitaries showing reverence to Sai Baba, their visits to Prasanthi Nilayam and their show of deference to Sai Baba on many occasions including the President of India, the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, Chief Ministers, Central and State Ministers and the dignitaries coming from abroad. His grievance in his own words is, 'at the cost of the State Exchequer' national leaders are competing with each other to pay periodic visits to Satya Sai Baba, making a mockery of secularism which they preach from the podiums even before boarding their special aircrafts. The case, however, which, in our opinion, has attracted the attention of the Court is narrated with reference to the F.I.R. registered at the instance of the Station House Officer, Puttaparthi, dated 6th of June, 1993, that an attempt was made on the life of Sai Baba and four assailants, namely, (1) E. K. Suresh Kumar, (2) Jagannathan, (3) Suresh Shantaram Prabhu and (4) K. Sairam, tried to enter Prashanti Nilayam around 10.30 P.M. to deliver what was purported to be a telegram from, 'another Godman Chandraswamy,' they were intercepted by Anil Patley, Vishnu Bhatt, Radhakrishna Menon and Sai Kumar Mahajan. While they were engaged in a scuffle, Sai Baba, who was present there and who heard the commotion, 'went to the 1st floor to admonish the assailants and thereafter he moved to his bed-room and bolted the door.' and, 'that he swiftly moved out of his chamber through a secret passage to safety after alerting the inmates by activating the siren.' The police was informed and it arrived on the scene. It, however, according to the petitioner, suppressed the original information and got it substituted by the second information emanating from the Station House Officer. The police, according to the petitioner, 'By their illegal commission and omission left behind 6 casualties who ultimately succumbed to the wounds inflicted on them.' The petitioner has offered his comments upon the case of the prosecution and stated his surmises, 'Most of the top police officials in the investigation process are also devotees of Sai Baba and, therefore, it is futile to expect from then even a semblance of impartiality,' 'That it is not the first time, doubts have been expressed about the role of the local police. It is well known that most of them being the Baba's devotees have helped the Baba in hushing up controverises of strange/unaccounted-for-deaths and suicides involving foreign and Indian Devotees.' and has sought, inter alia to order investigation into the alleged killing of 6 persons at Prashanti Nilayam on 6-6-1993 at 10.30 P.M.,' He has asked for inquiry into the activities in Prashanti Nilayam and the wealth which he has estimated at Rs. 6,000/- crores and many other matters.
3. The learned Single Judge has, however, found no merit in the writ petition and has dismissed the same. He has noticed the argument on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that since some police officers are responsible for killing the assailants, the State police would not be able to conduct the inquiry impartially against their subordinates and found against the petitioner in these words.
'Coming to the allegations regarding the incident in question, the allegation is that the original F.I.R. has been suppresed and substituted by the report of the Police Inspector. Here again, the petitioner has not thrown any light except stating that the original F.I.R. was replaced by the F.I.R., registered at the instance of the Station House Officer. The particulars of the F.I.R. given earlier including the descriptive particulars of the persons and the contents of the F.I.R. etc., are not disclosed. In the absence of any such material, the allegation that there was a prior F.I.R. which was replaced by a later one at the instance of the Station House Officer, at this stage cannot be countenanced. As the investigation is pending, this aspect also will certainly fall for consideration, if there is any truth in the said allegation. The allegation that even the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the Head of the Ashram has not been recorded so far by the police is not correct. The record, as placed before me, discloses that the allegation of the petitioner that even the statement of the Head of the Ashram under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was not recorded is not correct. It is not known on what basis the petitioner made such an allegation in his affidavit. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not disclosed the basis or the source from which such information is received by him. The petitioner cannot level allegations from his imagination.
The allegation in ground No. 'E' that the local police, inmates and politicians like the Union Home Minister and the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh are trying to prevent an investigation by the C.B.I., thereby ignored their legal and constitutional duty towards the public at large, has no basis.
Under Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Order 1031, the Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department (CB CID) will ordinarily deal with crimes of certain classes, including cases of such a nature as, in the opinion of the Director General and Inspector-General of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General, or district authorities should be dealt with by them. In this case, within hours after the incident took place i.e., on June 7, 1993, the very next day, the Inspector General of Police (CID) Hyderabad by Radio message requested Mr. M. A. Saleem, DSP CID, Tirupathi to take up the case for investigation immediately with instructions to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur to direct the concerned to hand over the Case Diary and other relevant records to the above officer immediately. Therefore, it is clear that the Inspector-General of Police (CID) swung into action and ever since the investigation is being conducted by the CB CID only and not by the local police. In the petitioner's affidavit, it is not even stated that the investigation is being conducted by the CB CID. In fact, one of the directions sought for by the petitioner is to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to order initiation of criminal proceedings against those police officials who claimed to have killed four persons on that day. Perhaps the petitioner is not aware that the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are not concerned with the investigation, as the investigation now in progress is being conducted by the DSP (CID), Tirupati and DSP (CID) Cuddapah, from the very next day of the incident.
The allegation in ground No. 'H' that an impartial investigation cannot be expected from the local police force when they are admittedly staunch devotees of Sri Satya Sai Baba, must have been made under the impression that the local police are conducting the investigation. Now that the local police are not concerned with the investigation and that the investigation is being conducted by CB CID under the direct control of Inspector General of the CB CID, this allegation lacks force.
The allegation that the police with a view to destroy the evidence must have killed four assailants and that as top police officials involved in the investigation process are also the devotees of Sri Satya Sai Baba, it is futile to expect from that even a semblance of impartiality, is also untenable. The record relating to the investigation shows that number of police officers have been arrested. Even K. N. Gangadhara Reddy, the Circle Inspector of Police, Puttaparthi, who played a prominent role in the incident and on whose report the Station House Officer registered the F.I.R. had to approach this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. My learned brother - Jagannadha Raju, J. granted bail to the said Circle Inspector. The Sub-Inspector, Head-Constables and armed constables who opened fire, were also arrested. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the apprehension of the petitioner that since police Officers who are involved in the investigation are the staunch devotees of Sri Satya Sai Baba, the investigation cannot proceed impartially.',
and found no merit in the allegations as to the honesty/impartiality of the investigation by the police, which, in the instant case, is CB CID. The learned Single, Judge has said, 'Evidently, the intention of the petitioner is more to tarnish the image of the Head of the Ashram.'
4. We have appreciation of the forbearance of the learned Single Judge that he has dealt with all the allegations of the petitioner-appellant to a great extent. He has finally held that they are introduced in the petition with the intention of tarnishing the image of the Head of the institution. The petitioner-appellant has shown, by what he has chosen to state in the wirt petition, that he has no regard or respect for any other person except for his own assumed and glorified status of a person who is leading some sort of movement to cleanse the society from all such faith and belief which he does not approve of. He has shown no restraint at all in the choice of words and more than once he has almost used vulgar and abusive language not only when he has referred to Sai Baba and his activities in Prashanti Nilayam and elsewhere but in naming the persons who held or are holding the offices such as that of the President of India, the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Ministers of the States and the Central and State Ministers and other High dignitaries who have made some mark of their own in the society and who are respected by more people than the petitioner-appellant can imagine. A proceeding in the Court on an issue of public importance has been used by the petitioner-appellant to project his own self and to denounce and denigrate others including Sai Baba, who, for many in the country and abroad, is a Godman or a Swamy or a saint. Of course, the country has the unique distinction of believers in incarnations of God and in Gurus and Swamis as well as non-believers from the days of the dawn of the history of the world. A healthy debate as respects faiths and beliefs which a society might develop in course of time was always welcome and there are several instances of great philosophers matching their wit against each other. The petitioner-appellant, instead of choosing to match his wit, has chosen the language of slander. He has brought litigation which, otherwise, would have been a serious litigation for a Court to ponder, as a means to scandalise and defame those who are not present before the Court to defend themselves. We offered to the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant opportunity to withdraw the slanderous allegations and relieve the Court of the painful task of cancelling the allegations against all the sundry as made by the petitioner-appellant and to record disapproval to his conduct. The petitioner-appellant has left no option to us except to reprimand him for the objectionable words used by him for the constitutional authorities and persons who have been and are enjoying respectable positions in life without any care or restraint and without exercising the refrain that on one should abuse any and other person unless he has the proof of the truth of the allegation. The petitioner-appellant has very unusual ideas about the norms of life in India and its Constitution which has professed freedom of religion and the right of every person to profess, practise and propagate his religion. He has somewhat confused approach about the promised secularism under Article 25 of the Constitution. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India is guaranteed in the sense that doctrines of each religion constitute its essential part, and religion is a matter of faith. Belief in God is not essential to constitute a religion. One can be more secular than those who profess they are secular if he does not interfere in the faith of another. The petitioner-appellant has done just the opposite. He has chosen to suggest that those who have faith in Sai Baba are supporters of a wrong-doer and who has been indulging in questionable activities. The petitioner-appellant thinks that one who holds a constitutional office must throw away his faith and should desist in all respects from discharging his religious duties. He has not only erred, in our opinion, but has done a great harm to the society which has always welcomed free thinkers and always appreciated the contributions made by such people to the society. When we are saying as above, we do not for a moment suggest that those who do not believe in Sai Baba are, in any way, inferior to those who believe in him. We are also not suggesting that the people should not be cautioned that there are many who masquerade as saints and Godmen, but they are not true to what they say or propagate. We cannot put it better than what Leo Tolstoy has said about the emergence of a large contingent of so called godmen in the society of Russia of Czars, that there were days when there were saints with tumblers of timber in their hands and heart of gold and there are days when there are saints with tumblers of gold in their hands and heart of wood. The petitioner-appellant, however, cannot take up the role of the leader of the society and cannot appoint himself as the adviser to all so that on his advice alone they would select whom to worship and whom to revere. At one stage, we thought the petitioner-appellant's obstinacy should not be ignored and the Court should make a proper order to make him realise that he is repeatedly coming to the Court with allegations which are more in the nature of slanders than of any sense for the proceeding, but we have decided against it because at least by moving this application he has high lighted that a crime committed any where should not be ignored by the law and the law must enforce it. We accordingly order that all allegations in the writ petition against Sai Baba and all other persons who are not concerned with the proceeding are expunged. The petitioner-appellant is only admonished this time, but if he repeats in future and attempts to use any proceeding of this Court for such slanderous objectives, he may suitably be dealt with.
5. To satisfy our conscience and also to know whether there was any let or hindrance in the investigation of the case and whether there is any deliberate twisting of the prosecution version and the investigation has been misdirected, we wanted to be informed about the latest position of the investigation and materials collected by the police. We accordingly adjourned the case for further hearing on 28-6-1995. The learned Advocate General has brought to our notice the records of the investigation and also furnished a copy of a letter from the Secretary to Government (Political) addressed to him and a report from the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad, to the Secretary to Government, General Administration (Political) Department. The records of the investigation have revealed that the Government has taken all necessary measures for a fair and impartial investigation and the investigating officer has done his job and completed the investigation except that under some misapprehension he has felt that in order to file a report as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permission to prosecute the conspirators under Indian Explosive Substances Act is required from the District Magistrate, Ananthapur, which is yet to be obtained and sanction to prosecute the police officers, who are accused, is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which he has to obtain from the Government. In the report dated 3-8-1995 of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad, to the Secretary to Government, General Administration, (Political) Department, it is stated that necessary action is being taken for the permission of the District Magistrate to prosecute the conspirators under the Indian Explosive Substances Act and the Sanction of the Government to prosecute the five police officers. In the letter from the Secretary to Government (Political), Hyderabad, to the learned Advocate General, it is conveyed that the Government have no objection to hand over the case to the C.B.I.
6. Since we are of the opinion that there is no reason to think that investigation has not been done to the extent required in such a case and almost all major work of investigation has been completed, any order by the Court or any other competent authority for investigation afresh by the Central Bureau of Investigation will be asking the latter to repeat the performance of the investigating officer who has reached to his conclusions that several persons are required to be charged for the various offences but before any report is submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sanction from the Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required as there are some police officers who are accused to have committed the offence/offences and permission of the District Magistrate is required for charges under the provisions of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. Section 197 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure is attracted when any judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office, save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. No Court shall take cognizance of such offences except with the previous sanction of the Government in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of State Five police officers, it is said, are involved in the case and since it is alleged that they have committed certain offences including murder, they are likely to be prosecuted in accordance with law. If they have acted or purported to act in the discharge of their official duty, the Court can take cognizance only when the sanction is accorded for their prosecution by the State Government. We have a prima facie acquaintance with the materials collected by the investigating officer and if we have to express our opinion at this stage of the proceeding whether the police officials, who are said to have participated in the commission of offence/offences, have acted in discharge of their duty or have purported to act in discharge of their duty, we are in a position to say one way or the other. If we do so, however, at this stage and do not allow the competent authority in the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh to apply his mind in accordance with law, we shall be interfering with the discretion of the sanctioning authority before the has exercised the discretion. The competent authority must get the opportunity and must exercise his power to sanction the prosecution before the Court says one way or the other as to the validity of the order sanctioning the prosecution or the correctness of the view of the sanctioning authority in case he refuses to sanction. Sanctioning authority is not a judge who is competent to say that the materials collected by the police are not believable or should be rejected and not taken as the proof of the allegations against any officer or servant of the Government. All that he is required to see is whether there is prima facie evidence and such prima facie evidence in the police records is enough for the purposes of the cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. Presence of material for a prima facie view with the police that a punishable offence has been committed by some servant of the Government is enough for the framing of the charge and trial of the offender. The settled law is that it is not for the police to see in the course of the investigation whether there is such evidence on which the Court shall convict the accused. It is enough if the materials collected by the police are such that they can be translated into legal evidence in the course of the trial and they create a strong suspicion of the commission of the offence by the accused. How and when the appointing authority or the Government should sanction the prosecution is not a subject for elaboration in the instant proceeding. We have no reasons to think that the Government of the State at the appropriate level shall, in any manner, try to shield or protect their servants who have allegedly committed the heinous offence of murder and are responsible for the desecration of a place which, for many in the country and abroad, is a sanctum and abode of their Guru or God.
7. District Magistrate's role in granting permission to prosecute the accused of the offences under the Indian Explosive Substances Act is more administrative than that of the sanctioning authority under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the case has already been investigated and there are materials collected by the police to show that explosives have been used by the offenders or found in their hands, there is no reason why he should refuse permission. We have reasons to think that the police officers, who are involved in he occurrence and who are likely to be charged by the investigating officer, have not acted in discharge of their duty and the alleged commission of the offence by them is not the one which can be called as the one done in performance of any official duty by them. We have, however, not decided this question as any decision by us at this stage and that too in the absence of the accused, will not be proper. It is a fit case, however, in our opinion, in which the investigating officer should submit his report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whether the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is granted by the Government or not and whether permission by the District Magistrate to prosecute for the offences under the Indian Explosive Substances Act is granted or not. The respondents, we have no reason to think otherwise, are expected to know the legal position that if there are grounds for the Court to think that no sanction is required, the Court can take cognizance of the offence even though the accused may be pleading that without sanction he/they cannot be prosecuted. If the required permission is not available for the offences under the Indian Explosive Substances Act, the Court can ignore the charge under the said law and proceed with the case in respect of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and other laws for which no permission is required.
8. As we have noticed earlier, the investigating officer is ready with his report and steps for the necessary sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being taken. We are of the opinion that the investigating officer should forthwith move the State Government for necessary sanction and the Government should decide granting sanction for the prosecution of its servants in accordance with law without any delay. The investigating officer has also stated that steps are taken for obtaining the permission of the District Magisstrate, Ananthapur, to prosecute the offenders under various provisions under the Indian Explosive Substances Act. We think it proper that the investigating officer should take immediate steps for the permission of the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate, without any delay, should grant the permission.
9. We have noticed with some anxiety the apprehension of the Investigating Officer, who has done a commendable job, that before submitting the chargesheet he should have clearance from the Government and the District Magistrate, Ananthapur, for above purposes. We have also noticed some hesitation in the Government in proceeding in according with law for accordance sanction etc., and directing for the submission of the chargesheet/final report by the Investigating Officer, it seems, because they have fear of persons like the petitioner-appellant who may call them names even though they may not be doing anything wrong at all. We have not appreciated such a belated stand of the Government to hand over the Investigation to the CBI for the reason that a job well done will lose its credence and a repeat performance will get the validity.
10. We have given some consideration to the case for deciding whether the proceedings before trial and before the charges and after framing of the charges, if cognizance is taken and charges are framed, should be in some Court in the District Ananthapur or in some other district. It will be neither improper nor inconvenient if all the proceedings in the case are taken up in the Courts in the city of Hyderabad. We are inclined for the said reason to direct the Investigating Officer to submit his report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and direct the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad, to nominate a Court for the proceedings for the cognizance and commitment, if any, and, in the event of commitment for the trial, before a Court nominated by the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
11. For the reasons aforementioned, we reject all allegations in the writ petition against person who have no connection whatsoever with the offence/offences in which investigation has been held, and expunge from the record all such matters which concern Satya Sai Baba and others, who are his devotees or not, who are not connected with the instant proceedings; direct the investigating officer to submit the final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as above, to forthwith represent to the Government for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as above, and to the District Magistrate, Ananthapur, for permission for prosecuting the accused under the Indian Explosive Substances Act as above, direct the State Government to pass order as contemplated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the District Magistrate, Ananthapur for according necessary permission in accordance with law as above. Other prayers in the writ petition are rejected and are closed finally.
12. Before we part with this judgment, we propose to record that the orders that we have passed are mainly based upon our appreciation of the materials collected by the Investigating Officer and not on the basis of any allegations in the writ petition. Our order in the writ appeal and accordingly in the writ petition should not be taken as one acknowledging the locus standi of the writ petitioner-appellant to raise in the name of public interest litigation unwarranted disputes.
13. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
14. Order accordingly.