I. Mahanty, J.
1. This writ petition was registered on the basis of a letter addressed by the petitioner Kabita Das, wife of late Bhaguni Das @ Bhagirathi Das of village Izapur, District-Jajpur in the State of Orissa bringing to the notice of this Court that in the night of 28-3-2007 at about 10.30 P.M. at village Izapur, accused Kedar Narayan Parida and nineteen others including his sons attacked her husband late Bhagirathi Das, most heinously in a group to take political revenge and killed him. On the basis of the FIR lodged to that effect, Mangalpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2007 was registered and on that basis G. R. Case No. 468 of 2007 has been registered in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Jaipur.
2. In her written complaint presented before this Court in person, the petitioner has stated that Kedar Narayan Parida is the main accused in the murder case and his sons are very influential persons of the ruling party. Although four months have elapsed, only three persons, out of nineteen accused persons in the murder case have been arrested and forwarded to the Court. She further alleged that arrest of those three persons and their forwarding to Court has been done on account of a secret understanding between the police and the Government authorities, in order to create an 'eye wash and in the meanwhile Kedar Narayan Parida and his sons are moving freely in the nearby areas with the knowledge of the police, but the police is not taking any step for arresting them. In the said complaint she further alleged that the accused persons have often visited her village and threatened to kill the witnesses to the incident if they say anything in their statement recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.). Therefore, she along with her brother-in-law have also intimated the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur and D.G. of Police, Orissa, complaining that no action has yet been taken on her complaint and no protection has been given to her family.
The petitioner's grievance in her application addressed to this Court also contains a prayer for a direction to the police authorities to apprehend the main accused Kedar Narayan Parida and his sons and to take appropriate steps against them in accordance with law.
3. This written application made by the petitioner Kabita Das was registered as Writ Petition (C) 12626 of 2007 and the order dated 4-10-2007 passed in that case runs as follows:
On 27-7-2007 a petition was presented before us by one Kabita Das claiming to be the widow of deceased Bhagirathi Das of village Ijapur, P.S. Mangalpur, District Jajpur alleging improper investigation into the murder of her husband Bhagirathi Das. A case has been registered being Mangalpur P.S. Case No. 28 dated 29-3-2007 under Sections 147/148/341/326/307/302/506/149, IPC. Her complaint basically is that in the said case there are 19 accused persons. Allegations in the F.I.R. have been made against those 19 accused persons, namely, Kedar Narayan Parida, Jyoti Ranjan Parida, Sakti Ranjan Parida, Bibeka Ranjan Parida, Darpanarayan Parida, Pranaya Kumar Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray, Kuna Ray, Ajay Kumar Ray, Asis Kumar Ray, Nityananda Sahoo, Tutu Sahoo, Hrusikesa Sahoo, Kartika Sahoo, Sudhanindhi Sahoo, Sk. Hanif, Santosh Sahoo, Prasanta Jena and Jitendra Parida. But out of those 19 persons only 4 persons have been charge sheeted and those 4 persons are stated to be Ajaya Kumar Ray @ Kunja, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu and Kartika @ Jyotiranjan Sahoo. Charge-sheet has not been filed against the remaining 15 accused personsthough direction has been given to file charge-sheet against 3 more persons, namely, Sudhanidhi Sahoo @ Mangua, Asis Kumar Ray and; Pranaya Kumar Ray. So far as other remaining 12 accused persons are concerned, no charge-sheet has been directed to be filed against them.
After the present petition was filed by Kabita Das. which was registered as PIL No. 43 of 2007, this Court directed Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate to take instructions in the matter, since the widow of the deceased was not in a position to explain properly the fads and circumstances of the case.
Let the said PIL No. 43 of 2007 be registered as a writ petition.
On our request Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate has filed before us detailed instruction received from the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur.
We find that the case was under the supervision of Shri N. Swain, OPS (I), Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, who after examining the witnesses named in the FIR concluded that the case was true against all the 19 accused persons. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer only arrested three of them. It appears from the said report that the lie detector test in respect of the witnesses was done and on such evidence, evaluation of Polygram revealed no deceptive responses in respect of the witnesses and the evidence of witnesses prima facie proves about presence of all the 19 persons who were attacking the deceased with different types of weapons. But, thereafter the Inspector General of Police, CR, Cuttack intervened and after his intervention he found the case to be true only against 7 persons and indicated that the involvement of other 12 accused persons named in the FIR needs thorough investigation. Therefore, it appears that at the intervention of the Inspector General of Police, CR, Cuttack filing of charge sheet against other 12 accused persons has been deferred.
Office is directed to make English translation of the petition dated 27-7-2007 filed by Kabita Das by tomorrow.
The matter will appear in the list on Monday (8-10-2007). The Inspector General of Police, CR. Cuttack is directed to appear before this Court on 8-10-2007 at 10.30 a.m. to give his explanation why did he intervene in the matter and virtually directed for nonfiling of charge sheet against the remaining 12 accused persons.
Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Addl. Government Advocate who will inform the Inspector General of Police, CR, Cutlack accordingly.
The original report of the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur dated 27-9-2007 and the copy of the letter of Circle Inspector of Police, Jajpur (I.O.) to the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur are kept on the record and they form part of this PIL.
Thereafter Mr. Debasis Panda, learned Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner-Kabita Das.
4. A counter affidavit was filed by Sri. Santosh Kumar Upadhay, I.G. Police, Central Range, Orissa, Cuttack. In the said counter affidavit he has stated in sub-paragraphs 3(a) to 3(c) as follows:
3(a) One Somanath Das, aged about 21 years, Son of Rabi Narayan Das, P. Section Mangalpur, Dist. Jajpur lodged an F.I.R. on 29-3-2007 before the O.I.C. of Mangalpur P.S. alleging that on 28-3-2007 at about 10.00 p.m. his brother Bhagirathi Das alias Bhaguni was brutally murdered by the following 19 accused persons named in the F.I.R. namely, Kedar Parida, Jyoti Ranjan Parida, Shakti Ranjan Parida, Bibeka Ranjan Parida, Jitendra Parida, Darpanarayan Parida, Pranaya Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray, Kuna Ray, Ajay Ray, Ashish Kumar Ray, Nityananda Sahu, Tutu Sahu, Hrusikesh Sahu, Sudhanidhi Sahu, Kartika Sahu, Sk. Hanif, Santosh Kumar Sahu and Prasanta Jena. On this a case was registered as Mangalpur P.S. Case No. 28/07, under Sections 147/148/341/306/326/307/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code dated 29-3-2007.
3(b) Pursuant to the allegations made in the FIR, the Investigation of the case was taken up by O.I.C., Mangalpur P.S. and later by C.I. of Police Jajpur Town. This matter was also immediately brought to the notice of Superintendent of Police, Jajpur.
3(c) The case was supervised by Shri Niranjan Swain, OPS-I, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Jajpur who found it was a true case against all the accused persons named in the FIR. The said supervising officer, however, instructed in his Supervision Note to the Investigating Officer that 'After tracing the absconding accused persons he will verify the different plea and alibi plea, if taken by the accused persons and deal in the case Diary.
The I.G. of Police, Central Range, Orissa, Cuttack further averred in sub-paragraph 3(e) of the said counter affidavit as follows:
One Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur requested for transfer of investigation of the aforesaid case to Stale Crime Branch. He met higher authority and alleged that persons who were innocent have been roped in. The I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, Cuttack vide his letter No. 20855/CID (SR-M) dated 23-6-2007 directed the deponent to look into the case personally and issue a test note immediately. He also directed that no innocent person should be harassed or implicated. Copy of the said letter has also been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure D.
5. It appears that the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Orissa, in compliance to the aforesaid direction, personally visited the spot on 4-7-2007 along with the S.P. Jajpur and examined in detail the investigation as well as supervision done earlier by Sri Nirajan Swain, OPS-I, Addl. S.P., Jajpur and issued his Test note on 12-7-2007. The I.G. of Police, Central Range, Orissa, Cuttack was of the view that direct evidence existed against only seven accused persons out of the nineteen accused persons named in the F.I.R. and based on an analysis of the evidences collected by him from the witnesses, concluded that direct evidence existed against seven accused persons, namely, Ajaya Kumar Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu, Pranab Kishore Ray, Sudhanidhi Sahu @ Mangua, Kartika Sahu and Ashish Ray. He also indicated that the involvement of other twelve accused persons named in the F.I.R. 'need thorough examination/verification' with the version of neutral witnesses, alibi verification from Mobile phone number, verification of their locations at the time of incident at various places and other connected evidence. In fact in the counter affidavit, the I.G. of Police, Central Range, in paragraph-4 thereof has categorically stated that apart from the seven accused persons, against whom he found direct evidence, he has 'never allowed the other accused persons to be let off' but, has suggested thorough investigation because of other connecting evidence.
6. From the affidavit of the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Orissa it appears that, he had relied upon the letter of the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, Cuttack dated 23- 6-2007, who had directed him to look into the matter personally and issue a, Test note immediately. Necessity was felt to issue notice to the CID, CB and accordingly, by order dated 3-1-2008 the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Orissa was called upon to file an affidavit to justify under what legal provisions he made a request for transfer of investigation on the request of one MLA and how could he pass on the MLA's hand written note of alibi for consideration by the investigating agency.
7. From the aforesaid direction of this Court, Sri Bijay Kumar Sharma, I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Orissa filed a counter affidavit to the effect that on 6-6-2007 Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur had made a written request for transferring the investigation of Mangalapur P.S. Case No. 28 dated 29-3-2007 and to entrust the same to the Crime Branch. On 7-6-2007 the Director General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack communicated a written order to the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, to take over investigation of the said case immediately. The I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, Cuttack in his affidavit has stated that upon receipt of the order of the Director General of Police and on very self same day, he enquired into the matter and in fact, turned down the request of the MLA seeking transfer of investigation to the Crime Branch. The I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack, Orissa has reflected his views in the affidavit, which runs as follows:
xx xx xx. The case has been supervised by Addl. S.P. who has found it to be true under Sections 147/148/323/326/307/302/506/149/120(B) against 19 accused, of whom 3 have been arrested so far. Sufficient evidence exists against all the accused for having committed the offence as per the supervision note. During discussion with S.P., Jajpur it was ascertained that rest 16 accused cited in the supervision note are absconding and in spite of regular raids they have not been apprehended so far.
The investigation of the case, hence, is pending only for arrest of the accused persons. The district police is in a much better position in terms of the logistic support and criminal intelligence for effecting arrest of accused than the Crime Branch. I have discussed with the S.P., Jajpur and requested him to put some of the telephones of the absconding accused under technical surveillance for collection of information about their location. The S.P. has promised to pay personal attention and ensure arrest of the absconding accused.
In the background of the above, it is suggested that the investigation of the case for the sake of continuity and for reasons recorded above may continue with the district police who can do a better job than Crime Branch in arresting absconding accused. The investigation however, shall be monitored by Crime Branch on a fortnightly basis.
8. It appears that the request of Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur for transfer of investigation of the case to the Crime Branch as well as the direction of the Director General of Police directing such transfer, was turned down by the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Orissa for the reasons stated in his order on 22-6-2007. It would be relevant to note here that this view of the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, Cuttack was duly approved by the Director General, Police. It further appears from the affidavit dated 9-1-2008 that Director General of Police thereafter called for the relevant files and passed the following orders:
Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur met me today. He alleges that persons who are innocent and with proper alibis, have been wrongly roped into this case as accused by one Sudhanidhi Sahu, Gram Panchayat Secretary, who was earlier involved in a murder case. List of other accused persons is at P. 28/c. I had earlier directed the S.P., Jajpur to look into this case and issue a 'Test Note'. However, in view of the above, I.G., Central Range, may look into this case personally and issue his Test Note.
The investigation of this case should be monitored by the Crime Branch and records put up to me from time to time.
9. A perusal of the files which have been called for by this Court, reveals that Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur had met the Director General of Police on 22-6-2007 and handed over a note in his own printed pad and own handwriting regarding the alleged alibis of some of the accused persons concerned in the case and that handwritten note was placed in the file by the Director General of Police at page-28/c. It further appears that two draft letters were prepared by the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, pursuant to the direction of the Director General of Police. A further direction was also made by the Director General of Police to enclose a copy of the handwritten note of Dr. Paremeswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur and accordingly that hand written note was sent to the I.G. of Police, Central Range for verification.
10. In essence the stand taken by the I.G. of Police, CID, CB in response to the notice issued to him was to the following effect:
(a) The I.C., Police CID, CB was satisfied on the supervision note of the Addl. S.P., Jajpur and agreed that sufficient evidence was existing against all the nineteen accused persons having committed the offence.
(b) Further, it appears that he was not in agreement with the direction for transfer of investigation of the case to the Crime Branch as requested by Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur, since in his view, sufficient evidence already existed against all the accused persons for committing the offence, as per the Supervision note and no real purpose would be served in taking out the investigation from the District Police, since at that stage, investigation was pending, 'only for arresting of the accused parsons' and he was of the view that, the District Police was in a much better position in terms of logistic support and criminal intelligence for effecting 'arrest of accused' than the Crime Branch.
(c) It further appears that after request of transfer of investigation was turned down by the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur met the Director General of Police on 22-6-2007 and handed over him a 'handwritten note' regarding alleged alibis of some of the accused persons and pursuant to the said request and on the written direction of the Director General of Police, the letter dated 23-6-2007 which is annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed by Sri. Santosh Kumar Upadhay, was issued by I.G. of Police, CID, CB.
11. The I.G. of Police, CID, CB in his affidavit further stated that he had issued the letter under Annexure D along with its enclosure under the circumstances as narrated in the affidavit and on the specific direction of the Director General of Police, he asserted that this act of his communication to the I.G. of Police. Central Range was in due compliance of the direction issued to him by the Director General of Police and in due discharge of his duties as the 'staff officer' of the Director General of Police.
12. When the issue of involvement of Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur came to the notice of this Court, this Court, on perusal of the Case Diary, which revealed that Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur was present at the time when the Test Report (2nd report) was prepared by the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack and further on consideration of the affidavits filed by the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack and I.G. of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack, directed issue of notice to Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur asking him to show cause under what authority of law one MLA can be present at the time of investigation and also to suggest the alibis of the accused persons.
13. Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanna and Ors. : 1980CriLJ98 and in particular, to the observation made by their Lordships in para 20 thereof. On consideration of the same, this Court impleaded Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur as Opposite Party No. 2 to the present proceeding and while issuing notice to him directed him to filed an affidavit.
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a counter affidavit was filed before this Court on 13-2-2008 and in the said affidavit Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA stated that he had given a typed letter in his own pad on 22-6-2007 to the Director General of Police indicating therein that innocent persons should not be allowed to suffer and had further prayed that the matter may be investigated by the Crime Branch. He categorically stated that he was never present at the time of investigation made by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, that only on one occasion the Inspector General of Police, Central Range had asked him to come down to his office to verify certain facts and upon his query, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA had informed him that Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present at Bhubaneswar in his quarters at the time of occurrence. Since Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA had not stated anything about the 'handwritten note' in his affidavit and since the learned Counsel appearing for him stated that he was not in a position to state whether the said 'handwritten note' had been given by the MLA concerned, by order dated 28-2-2008 a direction was issued to hand over a Xerox copy of the same to the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 with a further direction that, after perusing the same Dr. Parameswar Sethi MLA, shall file an affidavit disclosing therein whether the same has been written in his own hand or not and if he disowns to have written it, he was required to appear before this Court on the next date.
14. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA filed an additional affidavit on 19-3-2008 and in para 2 thereof he has stated that in order to explain the entire matter properly to the I.G. of Police, Central Range, he had jotted down the names of the persons who are supposed to be involved in the murder case for his own personal reference and in paragraph 4, he has asserted that the said document was not addressed to any one nor contained any date and/or bears his signature. According to him, the said document was purely for his own reference and could not by 'any stretch of imagination' be construed to be a 'hand written note' regarding alibi of the person concerned/involved in the case. It was not denied that the note was written in his own hand and made over to the concerned I.G. of Police.
15. In the process of hearing of this case, the case Diary of the investigation, records of the I.G. of Police, CID, Crime Branch containing the correspondence on the subject of transfer of the investigation as well as the file containing 'Test Report' and the records of the I.G. of Police, Central Range, were submitted before this Court and the same were taken on record.
16. Sri Debasis Panda, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the death of the deceased Bhagirath Das took place on 28-3-2007 on being assaulted by nineteen accused persons named in the F.I.R. It appears that the investigation of the case was supervised by Sri Niranjan Swain, Addl., S.P., Jajpur and he arrived at the conclusion that the case was true against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. Thereafter three accused persons namely, Nityananda Sahu, Jugal Kishore Ray and Ajaya Ray were arrested on 7-4-2007 and on 19-4-2007. The Circle Inspector of Jajpur took up the investigation and investigated the matter. On 15-5-2007 prayer was made to the learned Section D.J.M., Jajpur to record the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. of Jaladhar Parida and Pramod Mahalik (eye-witnesses) and thereafter, on 18-5-2007 similar prayer was made to the S.D.J.M. for recording the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., of Krushna Chandra Sahu. On 26-5-2007 Sri Niranjan Swain, Addl. S.P., Jajpur during his supervision found the case to be true against all the nineteen accused persons named in the F.I.R. On 1-6-2007 a prayer was made by I.O. for recording the statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. of Prahallad Mahalik and Bholanath Behera (eye-witnesses). It is only at this stage on 6-6-2007 though Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur wrote to the Director General of Police to transfer the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch. By order dated 7-6-2007 I.G. of Police. CID, CB turned down the request of the MLA for transfer of investigation of the case to the Crime Branch. Thereafter, on 18-6-2007 the I.O. prayed to the criminal Court to issue NBWs and proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. against Kedar Parida and his sons and others (apart from three accused persons apprehended and produced) and no soon as such a prayer was made, a second move was made by Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA by meeting the D.G. of Police and based on such a meeting, order was issued to the I.G. of Police, Central Range directing him to issue his 'Test Note'. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the second 'Test Note' prepared by the I.G. of Police, Central Range he took note of the fact that all the witnesses were sent for 'polygraph' test and that all the witnesses passed the said test and no deceptive response was found in the statements made by Jaladhar Parida (injured), Prahallad Mahallik. Somanath Das (informant), Pramod Mahallik and Nrusingha Ch. Rana. Hence, there was no reason whatsoever for the I.G. of Police, Central Range to doubt the statements of the witnesses once they had passed the polygraph test and more so when no reason exists whatsoever for questioning/doubting the veracity of the first Report, i.e., Supervision Note prepared by the Addl. S.P., Jajpur. Sri Panda further submitted that at this stage Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur met the I.G. of Police, Central Range and the second 'Test Note' was issued by him. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:
In course of discussion Hon'ble MLA, Jajpur stated that Sakti Parida (94378-4425) had telephonically informed him of the incident at Bhubaneswar who was allegedly present that day at Bhubaneswar. This needs verification from the mobile tower's location. It was also brought to my notice that another alleged accused Jyoti Parida having mobile No. 9437184108 was located at around Bhubaneswar that day which needs verification from Bhubaneswar.
17. Sri Panda further submits that recording of such statements by the I.G. of Police, Central Range of the concerned MLA clearly establishes the fact that the MLA was directly involved right from 28-3-2007 by telephoning the police even prior to the occurrence. It appears from the Test Report that, the MLA has also stated that he had telephoned the O.I.C., Mangalpur P.S. on that issue and asked the O.I.C., Mangalpur P.S. to intensify patrolling at 8.00 P.M. on the date of incident. It appears that the occurrence took place at 10.00 P.M. Thereafter, the MLA concerned tried to get the investigation transferred to the Crime Branch, since in the Supervision Note, the Addl. S.P., Jajpur had found the case to be true against the nineteen accused persons. After his attempt for transfer of the investigation to the Crime Branch was turned down, he thereafter, once again met the D.G. of Police and on that occasion while claiming that many innocent persons were being unnecessarily roped in this case, obtained an order directing the I.G. of Police, Central Range to issue a Test Note. At this stage, the I.G. of Police, Central Range went to the spot for verification and directed for polygraph test of the witnesses. The polygraph test report was obtained and the same having been found to be in order, the MLA concerned met the I.G. of Police, Central Range and provided a list of alleged alibis of the accused persons and he personally gave his evidence of being a alibi witness for Shakti Parida and Jyoti Parida (accused persons).
18. Sri Panda asserted that involvement of the MLA is clear from the fact that he has given many prevaricating statements and if the same are compared it will be seen that whereas he claims before the I.G. of Police, Central Range, that Shakti Parida had tele-phonically informed all the incidents at Bhubaneswar and he along with Jyoti Parida were allegedly present at around Bhubaneswar on the date of occurrence, in his affidavit dated 13-2-2008 in para-5, he asserted that 'Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present in my quarters, at the time of occurrence.'
19. Sri Panda, learned Counsel ultimately submitted that there was no lawful basis for directing the I.G. of Police, Central Range to issue a second Test Note. He submitted that there exists no allegation against the Addl. S.P., Jajpur in preparing the Supervision Note. He submitted that in the absence of any lawful reasons, the direction given to the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack to make out a second Test Note was wholly without sanction of law. He further submitted that even if the second Test Report of the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack is taken into consideration, it can be seen that he has also not stated that there is no evidence against the rest twelve accused persons apart from the seven accused persons against whom he has found a prima facie case. On the other hand, the I.G. of Police, Central Range in para-4 of his affidavit, has stated that 'he has never allowed other twelve accused persons to let off but has suggested for thorough investigation because of other connected evidence. Accordingly, he submitted that since prima facie evidence has been found against all the accused persons named in the FIR, the first Test Report, i.e., Supervision Note of the Addl. S.P., Jajpur should have been utilized for the purpose of filing of Charge Sheet against all the accused persons. In this respect it is also important to note herein that from amongst 19 accused persons only three accused persons were apprehended on 7-4-2007, all other accused persons are absconding as on date and therefore, learned amicus curiae expressed his surprise how a plea of alibi which is based on special knowledge of the accused persons and a plea of defense can at all be raised by Dr. Parmeswar Sethi, MLA in the absence of interrogation of the accused persons and in the absence of a claim of alibi by such accused persons themselves. In other words Mr. Panda submitted that this is a peculiar case where even after police has found the case to be prima facie true against all the nineteen accused persons, a plea of alibi has been raised by an M.L.A. and that too without the same being raised by the accused persons themselves and the investigation into the said alibis forms the basis for not filing any Charge-sheet against the other twelve accused persons, who are yet to be apprehended.
20. In this regard Mr. Panda placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. C.B.I. : 2008CriLJ337 and in particular the observation made by their Lordships in paragraphs 15 and 16 which are quoted hereunder:
A charge sheet is a final report within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. It is filed so as to enable the Court concerned lo apply its mind as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not. The report is ordinarily filed in the form prescribed therefor. One of the requirements for submission of a police report is whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom. In some cases, the accused having not been arrested, the investigation against him may not be complete. There may not be sufficient material for arriving at a decision that the absconding accused is also a person by whom the offence appears to have been committed. If the investigating officer finds sufficient evidence even against such an accused who had been absconding, in our opinion, law does not require that filing of the charge sheet must await the arrest of the accused.
Indisputably, the power of the investigating officer to make a prayer for making further investigation in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge sheet under Sub-section (2) thereof has been filed. A further investigation is permissible even if order of cognizance of offence has been taken by the Magistrate.
21. Mr. Panda, learned Amicus curiae submitted that in the present case death has occurred attracting Section 302, I.P.C. It is stipulated in the Orissa Police Manual, in particular, in Rule 47-A, that all such cases, which are Special Report Cases or cases triable exclusively by Court of Session, the investigation is to be conducted under the supervision of a superior officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further submits that Rule 48(a) of the Orissa Police Rules also mandates that no pressure shall be imposed on the subordinate officers in the course of investigation and further under Rule 173(a) and 173(b) of the Orissa Police Rules, stipulations have been made regarding conclusion of the investigation without a break, particularly in cases where the accused are known and further requiring submission of charge Sheet (C.S.). It is further not permissible to delay the subrriissi6n of a Charge Sheet on the plea of inability to secure the arrest of the accused persons and the same is permissible only in exceptional cases. Mr. Panda further placed reliance on Sub-section (2)(i)(e) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973 and submitted that it remains an obligation of a Investigation Officer to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay and forward the result of the investigation to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on the police report and the said report may also indicate under Sub-section 2(i)(e) whether the accused has been arrested or not.
22. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dinesh Dalmia : 2008CriLJ337 (supra) Mr. Panda submitted that this is a fit case where directions are to be issued to the Investigating Officer to file C.S. against all the nineteen accused persons on the basis of initial report and further direct the I.O. to take all necessary steps to apprehend the absconding accused persons and produce them before the trial Court. He further submitted that further direction may be issued to declare the second Test report submitted by the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack as illegal and unlawful since the second Test report is not permissible either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Orissa Police Manual and further since the Test report of the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack emanated at the behest of by way of interference in investigation by the local MLA, and on his request.
23. Mr. Kanungo, learned Counsel on behalf of Dr. Parameswar Sethi (O.P. 2) placed reliance upon two affidavits filed by opposite party No. 2 submitted that Dr. Parameswar Sethi, being a public representative had written a letter on his own pad on 22-6-2007 to the Director General of Police indicating therein that innocent persons should not be allowed to suffer and had also prayed that the matter should be investigated by the Crime Branch. Opposite party No. 2 asserted that once he had visited the office of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack on being asked in order to verify certain facts upon a query made by the I.G. of Police, Central Range and he had informed him that two of the accused persons namely Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present in his quarters at the time of occurrence. Apart from that in the second additional affidavit filed by Dr. Sethi, he asserted that the handwritten note given by him to the Director General of Police was not regarding the alibi offered by the accused persons involved in the case, but was merely a note jotted down in his own hand the names of the persons who are supposed to be involved in the murder for his personal reference. Basing on these averments in the affidavits, Mr. Kanungo submitted that this hand-written report was not addressed to any particular person nor contained any date or signature of Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA and therefore, he vehemently denied that the document established the fact that the opposite party No. 2 Dr. Sethi had provided a list of alibis of various accused persons. Apart from the factual stand as narrated in the counter-affidavits Mr. Kanungo placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanna reported in : 1980CriLJ98 .
24. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court have dealt with a judgment of the Patna High Court quashing the order, inter alia, holding that the direction given by the Chief Secretary with the concurrence of the Chief Minister for taking over investigation of the case by the Inspect General of Vigilance, was illegal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court framed three substantial questions in the said judgment, namely, (i) whether the State Government is competent to direct further investigation in a criminal case in which a report was submitted by the investigating agency under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case, (ii) whether the Magistrate having the jurisdiction to try the case committed any illegality in postponing the consideration of the report submitted to him upon the request made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, till the report of completion of the further investigation directed by the State Government was submitted to him, and (iii) whether during the pendency of investigation, High Court was justified in interfering with the same prohibiting or precluding further Investigation in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the case of State of Bihar : 1980CriLJ98 (supra), observations were made by High Court in respect of representation made by several MLAs/MLCs to the State Government. The Hon'ble Apex Court came to hold that, aspersions by the High Court on the complaints made by the elected representatives of the State lacks judicial propriety in that they were stigmatized and amounts to an adverse comment upon the elected representatives of the people behind their back and without calling for any explanation from them.
This judgment was also relied upon by the learned Counsel for the State.
25. In conclusion Mr. Kanungo submitted that since the Apex Court had already clarified in the case of State of Bihar: : 1980CriLJ98 (supra) that the executive authority is vested in the State to exercise its 'superintendence over the police' of the State, it also has the power to suggest change of investigating machinery, and therefore no objection can be raised against opposite party No. 2, since he had acted in his capacity as a public representative and had sought for change of the investigating agency and thereafter had made a prayer to the Director General of Police to carry out the investigation in such a manner so as not to involve innocent persons.
26. In the light of the facts noted hereinabove as well as the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and from the records produced in course of the hearing, the following facts emanate therefrom:
On 28-3-2007 deceased Bhaguni Das @ Bhagirathi and injured Jaladhar Parida were assaulted by 19 persons at Choudhury Chhak, Izapur and at 11.30 P.M. Station Diary Entry No. 606 was recorded at Mangalpur P.S. on receipt of the telephonic information. On 29-3-2007 at 6.00 A.M. an F.I.R. was lodged by one Somnath Das, brother of the deceased at Mangalpur P.S. naming 19 persons as accused pursuant to which investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer noted in the Case Diary 'that prima-facie case found against 19 accused persons named in the F. I. R.' On 30-3-2007 the Additional S.P., Jajpur took up supervision of the case as contemplated under Rule 47-A of the Orissa Police Rules, since the case comes under the expression 'important cases' because the alleged offence being under Section 302, I.P.C. which is a 'Special Report Case' requiring supervision of investigation by a superior officer. 11 On 19-4-2007 the Circle Inspector, Jajpur took up investigation of the case arid in the meanwhile, three accused persons namely, Ajay Kumar Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray and Nityananda Sahu were arrested and statement of witnesses namely, Jaladhar Parida and Pramod Mahalik and Krushna Chandra Sahu had been recorded under Section 164, Cri PC by the S.D.J.M., Jajpur.
The Supervision Report of the Additional S.P., Jajpur dated 26-5-2007 indicates the following finding:
True case against 19 persons named in the FIR.On 6-6-2007 Dr. Parmeswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, Orissa to transfer the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch. On 7-6-2007 the Director General of Police directed the Inspector of General CID, CB to take up the investigation. On the same day the I.G. of Police, CID, CB, turned down the request of Mr. Sethi, MLA for transfer, confirming the Supervision Note issued by the Additional S.P., Jajpur. On 8-6-2007, D.G. of Police agreed with the view of the I.G. of Police, CID, Crime Branch.
27. In the light of the aforesaid facts it is clear that the original Investigating Officer, found a 'prima facie case against 19 accused persons named in the FIR'. The Supervising Officer, namely, the Additional S.P. Jajpur found the same to be a 'true case' against all 19 persons named in the FIR. The I.G. of Police, CID, CB affirmed the views expressed by the Addl. S.P., Jajpur about existence of a prima facie case against all 19 accused persons and turned down the request for transfer of investigation to the CID, Crime Branch. The D. G. of Police also agreed with the views expressed by the I.G. of Police, CID, CB as to the existence of a prima facie case, as well as turning down the request of the MLA seeking transfer of the investigation of the case. These facts collectively indicate that all the authorities in the police fight from the level of the Investigating Officer to the Circle Inspector who thereafter took up the investigation, the Additional S.P., Jajpur who supervised the investigation, the I.G. of Police, CID, CB who confirmed the prima facie evidence and findings of Addl. S.P., Jajpur and the D.G. of Police, also affirmed the views of the I.G. of Police, CID. CB and therefore have all agreed that 'a true case existed against 19 accused < persons named in the FIR.'
28. After the first series of the events as-, noted hereinabove and while no effective steps had been taken for apprehending the other accused persons (apart from three persons already arrested since 7-4-2007), the MLA, Jajpur went and personally meet the D. G. of Police on 22-6-2007. It appears that the D.G. of Police noted the following in the relevant file:
Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur met me today. He alleges that persons who are innocent and with proper alibis, have been wrongly roped into this case as accused by one Sudhanidhi Sahu, Gram Panchayat Secretary, who was earlier involved in a murder case. List of other accused persons is at P. 28/c I had earlier directed the S.P., Jajpur to look into this case and issue a 'Test Note'. However, in view of above, I.G. Central Range may look into this case personally and issue his Test Note.
The investigation of this case should be monitored by the Crime Branch and records put up to me from time to time.
29. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, appropriate letter was addressed to the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack to carry out the direction of the Director General of Police. During the interregnum, the Investigating Officer had moved the S.D.J.M., Jajpur for Issuance of NBWs and Proclamation under Section 82, Cri PC, against the absconding accused persons, namely, Kedar Parida, his sons and others and NBWs and Proclamation have also been issued by the Court, pursuant to the request of the Investigating Officer. It is at this stage a direction was issued by the D.G. of Police on the request of the MLA and following is the sequence of events thereafter.
4-7-2007 I.G.C.R. and S.P., Jajpurwent to spot for supervision/test report. Local M.L.A. andthe Addl. S.P. Jajpur werepresent. In the test report I.G.C.R. concludes on the basisof statements of arrested ac-cused persons that participa-tion of 7 (seven) accused persons is to be believedand he finds prima facie evidence against the arrestedaccused in custody and Asish Raysubject to verification of his pleaof alibi.9-7-2007 Witnesses sent for polygraph test.13-7-200,7 Test report received by I.O.20 7-2007 Polygraph test report received.No deceptive response foundin respect of (i) JaladharParida (injured) (ii) Prahallad Mahallik (iii)Somanath Das (informant) (iv)Pramod Mahallik but deceptiveresponse found in respect of (v) Nrusingha Ch. Rana.22-7-2007 I.O. contacts M.L.A. Jajpur.On the basis of such contact he concludes that suspect Jyotiranjan and Sakti-ranjan were present at Bhuban-eswar on 28-3-2007.3-8-2007 Preliminary charge sheet filedagainst 4(four) accused incustody with prayer to continue further investigation.This further investigation is for arrest of Pranaya Ray,Sudhanidhi Sahu and Asish Ray.
29-A. The issues that arise from the facts that have been recorded hereinabove are as follows:
(i) Whether there is any scope for a second 'Supervision Test Report', even after the original supervision of the Addl. S.P., Jajpur had been affirmed by all the superior officers, i.e., up to the rank of D.G. of Police.
(ii) Veracity of the Test Report issued by the I.G. of Police, Central Range based upon views and facts that emanate out of apparent interference by Dr. Paramesware Sethi. MLA., Jajpur.
30. Section 173 of the Cri PC in this context is extremely relevant and is, therefore, noted herein below:
173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case?
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e)whether the accused has been arrested;
(f)whether he has been released on his bond and, if so whether with or without sureties;
(g)whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 158, the report, shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this Section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report-
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(6) If the police is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
(7) Whether the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in Sub-section (5).
(8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, whereupon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2).
It is well settled proposition that the 'police report' (result of investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is a conclusion that an investigating officer draws on the basis of materials collected during investigation and such conclusion can only form the basis of a competent Court to take cognizance thereupon under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code and to proceed with the case for trial. This has been laid down in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 4 Supreme 211. It is further well established that police possesses the necessary power to conduct further investigation, even after filing Final Form and the same is recognized under Section 173(8) Cri PC See Sri B.S.S. V.V.V. Maharaj v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1999CriLJ3661 .
31. In the case of Dinesh Dalmia : 2008CriLJ337 (supra), the observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 15 & 16, which have been quoted earlier, make it clear that the mandate of law is not to await the apprehension or arrest of the accused person in the event a prima facie case is found by the Investigating Officer against the accused person. In other words, it is clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the Investigating Officer finds sufficient evidence against an accused who had been absconding, law does not require that filing of the charge sheet must await the arrest of the accused.
32. It appears from the facts of the present case that the charge sheet has been filed against seven accused persons in view of the test report of the I.G. of Police, Central Range. We are of the view that the test report of the I.G. of Police, Central Range had, in fact, no legal basis for the following reasons:
(a) The earlier Supervision Note issued by the Addl., S.P., Jajpur, which was in consonance with Rule 47-A of the Orissa Police Manual, was affirmed by the I.G. of Police, CID, CB as well as D.G. of Police. Therefore, the basis for filing of a charge sheet for all practical purposes should be this Supervision Note, issued by Addl. S.P., Jajpur. In the present case, there is no justification for issue of a further direction to the I.G. of Police, Central Range to carry out another supervision and issue a 'Test Report'. The said direction being wholly unsupportable in law and in absence of any new fact or circumstance for review or reconsideration, of the earlier Supervision Note issued by the Addl. S.P. Jajpur, we are of the view that the direction to the I.G. of police, Central Range by the D.G. of Police to issue a 'Test Report' in the present case is wholly without any lawful authority.
(b) The factual matrix of the case is that after I.G. of Police, Central Range went for further supervision, he directed that the prosecution witnesses should be sent for polygraph test. Such polygraph test indicated no deceptive response in respect of (i) Jaladhar Parida (injured), (ii) Prahallad Mahalli, (iii) Somonath Das (informant)(iv) Pramod Mahallik, but deceptive response was found in respect of Nrusingha Ch. Rana. In our prima facte view, once the Polygraph Test Report was obtained which confirmed that no deceptive response was found in respect of four out of five prosecution witnesses, the same affirms the views expressed by the Investigating Officer as well as the Supervisory Officer, i.e., the Addl. S.P., Jajpur. In the absence of deceptive response, no reason whatsoever exists for differing from the views of the earlier supervisory officer. The comparative statements of the various witnesses annexed to the affidavit under Annexure-'E' of the I.G. of Police, Central Range, Cuttack makes an extremely interesting reading, which, in fact, goes to show that all the witnesses to the occurrence have been consistent in their evidence regarding persons involved in the offence, use of weapons as well as dresses worn by the accused persons. Yet I.G. of Police, Central Range directed a thorough verification of the liability of twelve accused persons by verifying versions of neutral witnesses, alibis and verification of their locations. It is apparent that even in the face of clear prima facie evidence, as stated by witnesses, twelve accused persons were taken out of the purview of Charge sheet, at the behest of the MLA who provided alleged alibis for them. The so-called verification of alibis etc., directed by the I.G. of Police, Central Range was not completed within a reasonable time frame so that in the garb of statutory limitation, the case could be charge-sheeted against arrested accused, excluding the twelve accused, notwithstanding the evidence against them. The fact that these twelve accused persons have not been examined as yet only proves the clever twist given in the investigation of the case by the I.G. of Police, Central Range to exclude them from the Charge Sheet.
33. We find the situation to be gravely alarming. The purpose of investigating into such serious cases in a fair and impartial manner is a very vital component of rule of law on which rests the vision of justice as contemplated under the Constitution of India. We are constrained to observe that on the plea of alibi of various accused persons provided by MLA, Jajpur the case is not Charge-sheeted against most of the accused persons. The I.G. of Police, Central Range in his affidavit as well as in the 'Test Note' indicates that the MLA has provided the alibi of various persons involved as accused in this case. The MLA's own hand written note was shown to him. He, however, in his additional affidavit denies such a fact and instead, stated that the note which is found on record though written in his own hand and in his own pad, the names of the persons who are supposed to be involved in the murder case were merely recorded by him for his own personal reference. Therefore, if such a note of the MLA is not a plea of alibi, then such a note could not have formed a basis for consideration of alibi of various accused persons by I.G. of Police, Central Range.
34. Since the case is yet to be tried, we refrain from making any other observation on the merits of the case, but we are of the considered view that the Test Report issued by the I.G. of Police, Central Range is not bona fide in the eye of law and should not be acted upon since it has emanated from a direction issued by the Director General of Police who not only had already affirmed the earlier Supervision Note issued by the Addl. S.P. Jajpur, but was acting on the request of MLA, Jajpur to verify the alibi of twelve accused persons which the MLA disowns.
35. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the appropriate, authority to take action against all the accused persons, in accordance with law based upon the 'Supervision Note' issued by the Addl. S.P., Jajpur. Accordingly, all actions taken till date on the basis of 'Test Report' (2nd Report) of the I.G. of Police, Central Range are quashed. Directions are further issued to take action immediately in accordance with direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. C.B.I. : 2008CriLJ337 (supra) and since the Investigating Officer has found prima facie evidence against all the accused persons, law does not require that filing of Charge Sheet must await the arrest of the accused persons. It is further clarified that the Investigating Officer, if circumstances required may make further investigation in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cri. PC after the apprehension of the accused persons.
36. With reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of J.A.C. Saldanna : 1980CriLJ98 (supra), we are in respectful agreement and also concur with the view that investigation of an offence is a field, exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the Government. In the said case, it appears that the Chief Secretary as the highest executive officer of the State, exercising power of superintendence over the police had the necessary power to suggest change of investigating machinery.
37. In the present case, however, representation of the MLA to the Chief Minister was merely forwarded to the D.G. of Police without any specific direction. It appears that the D.G. of Police was approached by the MLA, even though he had already turned down his request for transfer of investigation by affirming with the views of the I.G. of Police, CID, CB while agreeing with the Supervision Note of the Addl. S.P., Jajpur. Yet the D.G. of Police thereafter acted on the further request of the MLA to direct the I.G. of Police, Central Range to enquire into the alibis provided by the MLA and to issue a further Test Report.
38. Therefore, the facts of the present case are clearly different/distinct from the case dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.A.C. Saldanna : 1980CriLJ98 (supra). This is not a case where the Chief Secretary has issued any direction for change of investigation machinery and instead, it is a case where the D.G. of Police has directed the I.G. of Police. Central Range to issue a 'Test Report' which, in the circumstances narrated hereinabove, was itself without jurisdiction. It is reiteraed that whereas such authority is no doubt vested in the head of the executive machinery, which includes the D.G. of Police, but once D.G. of Police has exercised such authority, and had affirmed the Supervision Note issued by the Addl. S.P., Jajpur had also turned down the request of the MLA for change of investigating machinery, it was no longer open for the D.G. of Police to direct issue of a further report by any Supervisory Officer.
39. Before parting, it is now necessary to deal with an application filed by Mr. B.K. Sharma, I.G. of Police, CID, CB relating to expunction of certain remarks in the order No. 7 dated 3-1-2008 passed while issuing notices to him and in particular, the remarks recorded in the last paragraph of page 4 of the order.
40. We do find that Mr. B.K. Sharma, I.G. of Police CID, CB did send the handwritten note of the MLA to the I.G. of Police, Central Range, but the same was sent under the written direction of D. G. of Police and he had no role to play in influencing police investigation at the behest of MLA. The records of the case clearly reveal that, Mr. B.K. Sharma, I.G. of Police, CID, CB not only turned down the request made by the MLA for transfer of investigation to the Crime Branch, but also, exhibited his professional integrity by standing up to the directions issued to him by the D.G. of Police in the said regard. This act on the part of the officer is noteworthy, since it goes a long way in re-instating the faith of the common man in the absolute requirement of impartiality for any police investigation.
41. We would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Sri Debasis Panda, learned Advocate who was appointed an amicus curiae in this matter.
42. Before concluding, we put on record 'That we express our total disapproval of the role played by the concerned MLA Dr. Parameswar Sethi in trying to deflect the course of investigation. This amounts to interference with the course of justice. We are not, for the facts discussed above, satisfied about his bona fide. The concerned MLA should do well to remember that however high he may be, law is still higher. We therefore order that the concerned MLA must not either directly or indirectly try to interfere with the course of investigation in any manner. Let the investigation proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the directions contained hereinabove.
43. The writ petition is allowed with the directions hereinabove.
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.
44. I agree.