Supreme Court Refuses CBI Probe in NDPS Case, Upholds Trial Court Proceedings

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 180

Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can allegations of illegal detention and a fabricated case under the NDPS Act warrant an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, declining to order a CBI probe and upholding the ongoing trial court proceedings. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which the Court will exercise its extraordinary power to transfer an investigation to the CBI. The bench comprised Justices A.S. Bopanna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the judgment authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The case involves Royden Harold Buthello (Appellant No. 1), who is accused of selling psychotropic substances, and his father (Appellant No. 2), who raised concerns about the legality of the actions taken by the prosecuting agency. Appellant No. 1, an automobile engineer and income tax payee, was also involved in his father’s logistics business, which required him to travel to Odisha and Chhattisgarh for transportation contracts. According to the appellants, on 20 October 2020, while staying at Hotel Green Park in Talcher, Odisha, Appellant No. 1 was allegedly abducted by four individuals impersonating police officers and taken to Raipur.

Appellant No. 1 claims that he was held in illegal custody and his mobile phone and laptop were confiscated. Subsequently, on 21 October 2020, an FIR No. 232/2020 was lodged against him for an alleged offense under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, accusing him of possessing 9.240 grams of cocaine with the intention to sell. His name was also included in an earlier FIR No. 255/2020. Aggrieved by these actions, Appellant No. 2 filed online complaints seeking action against the alleged illegal actions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially sought a direction for a CBI investigation, the quashing of the charge sheet, and the proceedings before the trial court. However, given that charges had already been framed by the trial court and the discharge application was dismissed, the relief sought was limited to a CBI investigation. The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the plea for a CBI investigation, which led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. The High Court also upheld the order of the Special Judge under the NDPS Act at Raipur, who had dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and framed charges against the appellant under Section 29 read with Sections 22(b), 22(c), 25, and 27 of the NDPS Act.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The relevant provisions include:

• Section 22 of the NDPS Act: This section deals with punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. Specifically, Section 22(b) and 22(c) are relevant, concerning offenses involving specified quantities of psychotropic substances.
• Section 25 of the NDPS Act: This section deals with punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.
• Section 27 of the NDPS Act: This section deals with punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.
• Section 29 of the NDPS Act: This section deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
• Section 227 of the CrPC: This section deals with the procedure for discharge of the accused.

The legal framework also includes the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was invoked by the appellants to seek a direction for a CBI investigation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants contended that Appellant No. 1 was illegally abducted from a hotel in Odisha on 20 October 2020 by individuals impersonating police officers from Chhattisgarh. They argued that this abduction makes it impossible for Appellant No. 1 to have committed the alleged offense in Raipur on 21 October 2020.
• The appellants claimed that the FIR No. 232/2020 was a fabricated case, and the inclusion of Appellant No. 1’s name in the earlier FIR No. 255/2020 was also unjust.
• They sought a CBI investigation, asserting that the local police were biased and had foisted a false case against Appellant No. 1.
• The appellants relied on affidavits filed by the State of Odisha, which acknowledged that some individuals claiming to be from Chhattisgarh Police had visited the hotel in Odisha, to highlight the contradictions in the statements of the State of Chhattisgarh.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents denied the allegations of abduction and illegal detention. They contended that the police had gone to Odisha in connection with the earlier FIR but could not find Appellant No. 1 there.
• They stated that Appellant No. 1 was apprehended in Raipur while indulging in illegal activities, leading to the registration of FIR No. 232/2020.
• The respondents argued that the contentions of the appellants were available as a defense in the trial court, and there was no need for a CBI investigation.
• The State of Chhattisgarh argued that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court do not permit referring every case to the CBI where an accused makes allegations against the local police.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants was in highlighting the contradictions in the stand taken by the State of Chhattisgarh and the State of Odisha, and in arguing that the timeline of the alleged abduction made it impossible for the appellant to have committed the offense.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant a transfer of the investigation to the CBI.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court cited State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 571]* to emphasize that the power to order a CBI investigation is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
• The Court referred to Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2015) 9 SCC 795]* to reiterate that the transfer of an investigation is not to be ordered just for the asking or to satisfy the ego of a party.
• The Court also cited Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India [(2020) 14 SCC 12]* to highlight that the power to transfer an investigation must be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary one, to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations against the local police are not sufficient grounds for a CBI investigation. The Court also noted that the appellants had the opportunity to present their defense during the trial, and the issues raised were primarily matters of evidence to be considered by the trial court.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a balanced consideration of both factual and legal aspects. While the factual allegations of abduction were acknowledged, the legal principles regarding the transfer of investigations and the importance of trial court proceedings were given more weight. The ratio of fact to law is 40:60, indicating a greater emphasis on legal considerations.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision not to order a CBI investigation. The Court emphasized that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power that must be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. The Court found that the appellants’ contentions were primarily matters of evidence that could be addressed during the trial. The Court also noted that the appellants had other legal remedies available to them, including the possibility of seeking action for malicious prosecution and compensation.

The Court stated, “This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations…”. This quote underscores the Court’s view that a CBI investigation is not a routine matter.

The Court also noted, “The decision whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on the Court’s satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order.” This highlights the case-specific nature of such decisions.

Further, the Court observed, “The case of the appellant is clear as to the reason why he contends that the appellant No.1 cannot be held to have committed the offence as registered in FIR No.232/2020…”. This indicates that the Court acknowledged the appellant’s defense, but held that it should be addressed in the trial.

The Court did not find any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reaffirmed the existing principles regarding the transfer of investigations to the CBI.

There was no majority or minority opinion as the bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly.
• Unsubstantiated allegations against the local police are not sufficient grounds for a CBI investigation.
• The trial court is the appropriate forum to address factual disputes and defenses.
• Accused persons have legal remedies available to them, including the possibility of seeking action for malicious prosecution and compensation.

The judgment emphasizes that the courts should not interfere with the investigation process unless there is a clear case of bias or injustice. It also highlights the importance of the trial court in resolving factual disputes.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court reaffirmed that the trial court is the appropriate forum to address factual disputes and defenses, and unsubstantiated allegations against the local police are not sufficient grounds for a CBI investigation. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, refusing to order a CBI investigation into the NDPS case. The Court emphasized that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary one to be used sparingly. The Court held that the appellants’ contentions could be addressed during the trial and that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a CBI investigation. The judgment reinforces the importance of the trial court in resolving factual disputes and upholds the existing legal principles regarding the transfer of investigations.