@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Since the relief sought for, the issue involved and the respondent police is one and the same in both the petitions, a common order is being passed to dispose of these two Criminal Original Petitions.
2. The case of the petitioner as given in Crl. O.P. No. 2463/2010 is as follows:
After the unpleasant and unsavory incident that took place inside the Madras High Court campus on 19.02.2009, a case was registered by the first respondent on the orders passed by this Court in RC2(S)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai. Several Advocate Associations including the petitioner Association were responsible for registering the above case. The petitioner Association was a party before this Court in the Suo Moto writ petition initiated by this Court in W.P. No. 3335/2009 and the petitioner association is the petitioner in W.P. No. 3910/2009. Therefore, being an aggrieved party they questioned the charge sheet filed by the first respondent before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Final report was filed by the respondent on 12.01.2010. It is stated that many senior top officials of the Police Department, who were responsible for the incident that took place on 19.02.2009 were left out deliberately in the final report filed by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner herein had filed a Memorandum on 18.01.2010 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai to return/reject the said final report. After hearing the arguments in detail, the Trial Judge passed the order on 21.01.2010, which reads as follows:
Final Report No. 1,2,3,4,5 filed in RC2(S)2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai against Shri S. Palanivel Rajan.
In para 7 of the Memos filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Advocate''s Association, Madras High Court Advocate''s Association and the Women Lawyers'' Association High Court, Madras on 18.01.2010 in this Court, they have stated that there are several other documents, photographs and video clippings to implicate other officers and men of the police force apart from the aforesaid senior police officers. Hence time is granted to the advocates till 05.02.2010 for furnishing all the available materials with regard to this case, to the Investigating Officer of this case. On receipt of the above further evidence, both oral and documentary, the Investigating Officer is required to investigate further in accordancewith law and to file a further report in to this Court on or before 22.02.2010.
Call on 23.02.2010 along with PRC 8/2010.
3. It is their further case that only during the arguments before the trial Court, they came across the non-inclusion of several senior officers belonging to the Indian Police Service, who were responsible for the lathi charge inside the High Court campus and their names were deliberately left out in the final reports filed by the first respondent, inspite of the Division Bench of this Court holding them responsible for the incident that took place on 19.02.2009. The first respondent filed final reports 1 to 5 in the above RC against five Constables for only minor offences, that too, individual charge sheets only were filed against them.
4. It is stated that this Court in the contempt proceedings had clearly held that the four senior police officers, namely, Thiru K.Radhakrishnan, IPS., Thiru A.K.Viswanathan, IPS., Thiru S.Ramasubramanian, IPS., and Thiru Prem Anand Sinha, IPS., were guilty of Contempt of Court and the same was posted for filing counter by some of the police officers on 16.02.2010. This Court had further mentioned the specific names of several other IPS officers to be proceeded with, if evidence was found against them. In fact, in order to cover up and justify the defective final reports in the above case, the first respondent Organisation had hurriedly convened a Press Conference making allegations against the Advocates and their Associations alleging that they did not co-operate and furnish with other materials for proper investigation. It was in fact unfair on the part of the first respondent to make such allegations, that too, in a hastily convened press conference meant deliberately to divert the attention of the public with regard to the filing of the faulty final reports. It is also unfortunate to complain that the Advocates did not co-operate with their investigation. In fact, after the judgment of this Court made on 29.10.2009, the petitioner herein had submitted a detailed Memorandum on their letter head to the Director, CBI, New Delhi along with several documents to substantiate the case of the petitioner Association and other Advocates. In fact, this Court had passed a detailed judgment running into more than 500 pages, only based on the documents and materials furnished by the petitioner Association. In the above judgment, this Court gave permission to the petitioner to furnish all the relevant materials relied on by them to the first respondent to support the investigation. Thus, it is utter falsehood on the part of the first respondent to state that the petitioner and other Advocates did not co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner herein reserves their right to file contempt application against the officers of the CBI at a later date for uttering falsehood that the case against the officers is sub judice since the matter is pending before the Apex Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has only stayed the departmental proceedings and not the criminal proceedings and contempt proceedings.
5. It is further stated that a closer scrutiny of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements and final report prepared by the various officers of the first respondent Organisation during its investigation would clearly establish that apart from the four officers named above, there were several other IPS officers who were involved in the ghastly incidents which resulted in the brutal lathi charge on 19.02.2009. To cover up the above said facts, the first respondent has filed the present final reports in this case in a biased manner, making only five Constables out of the entire police force as responsible for the said incidents, that too, by filing five independent charge sheets for minor offences. This would clearly establish that the respondent has gone all out to rescue the above mentioned four IPS officers and other officers whose names were found in the final reports prepared by the officers of the first respondent. In this connection, the reply affidavit of Mr. A.K.Viswanathan, IPS and Former Additional Commissioner of Police, Chennai filed in the contempt proceedings is worth reading.
6. The petitioner states that this Court was monitoring the investigation by asking the first respondent to file status report during several hearings. This petition has been filed to bring to the notice of this Court regarding the biased investigation of the first respondent Organisation herein to shield the senior officers from this case. It is the case of the petitioner that this case should give a wake up call to the first respondent Organisation herein that hereafter no external pressure and influence should be taken into consideration for filing Final Reports (Charge Sheet) before a Competent Court for prosecuting the real accused and for this purpose this Court''s interference and direction is just and necessary. Hence, the above Criminal Original Petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief.
7. On the very same lines, the Women Lawyers'' Association represented by its Secretary has filed Crl. O.P. No. 3698/2010 seeking for the very same relief as aforesaid.
8. During the pendency of the petition in Crl. O.P. No. 2463/2010, an application in M.P.No.1 of 2013 was filed by a proposed party, namely, a practising Advocate of this Court to implead himself as the second respondent in this petition. This petition was allowed by this Court on 28.03.2013 as prayed for and the proposed party/practising advocate was impleaded as the second respondent in the above petition. Thereafter M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2013 were filed by the impleaded party for a direction to appoint a Special Investigation Team of Expert Investigators headed by a senior most officer who does not belong to the batch of the offenders of 19.02.2009 incident and to investigate the case in RC.No.2/S/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai against the police officials and to file a final report within the time stipulated by this Court and to direct the Registrar General of this Court not to hand over the records and other materials to the CBI respectively.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the impleaded party/2nd respondent would vehemently contend that final report submitted by the first respondent and its officers is not proper and therefore the entire investigation will have to be handed over to a Special Investigation Team of Expert Investigators headed by a senior most officer who does not belong to the batch of the offenders of 19.02.2009 incident and to investigate the case.
10. A counter statement has been filed by the first respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 2463/2010, wherein it is stated as follows:
The CBI took up the investigation only on the orders passed by this Court in suo moto writ petition in W.P.(PIL)No.3335/2009 and the orders passed thereon on 19.02.2009 and 02.03.2009. The petitioner was a party before this Court in the said writ petition. However, the petitioner was not a party to the report filed u/s 173 Cr.p.C. (Charge Sheet) by the CBI before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the charge sheet filed by this respondent. This respondent has filed five reports u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (Charge Sheets) in RC 2(S)/2009 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 12.01.2010. It is not correct to state that several top police officials of the Police Department were left out deliberately in the Final Reports filed by this respondent. In fact, in those reports, this respondent submitted that the investigation with regard to role, conduct and culpability of other police officials is continuing u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. which has been mentioned in the Final Reports filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The order passed by the Magistrate concerned on 21.01.2010 is a matter of record. Thus this respondent in complying with the orders of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It is admitted that this respondent has filed individual charge sheets against five police personnel for their individual illegal acts committed by them on 19.02.2009. Three charge sheets were filed against three police personnel for commission of offence punishable u/s 427 IPC and Section 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and two charge sheets were filed against two police personnel for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 352 IPC for their specific individual overt acts and illegal acts. In addition, the CBI has recommended departmental proceedings against 22 other police personnel that include officials from the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police to Police Constables for their official misconduct. Further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. is still continuing in this case including with regard to role, conduct and culpability of four senior police officers. It is admitted that CBI convened a press conference on 15.01.2010 in view of the importance of the case. As per the practice, CBI convenes press conference in important cases to share the highlights of the case with the media without disclosing finer details, to avoid speculation in the minds of the public. In the press conference, the cooperation extended by various Advocate fora and the general public was appreciated with an appeal to provide further evidence, if any.
11. It is further stated by the first respondent that during the course of investigation, all materials were received and collected and they were thoroughly scrutinised and studied and a free and fair investigation was conducted without any bias. In fact, all the Advocates Associations including the petitioner Association were requested to provide any relevant materials available in their possession in the interest of the case. The petitioner also submitted a Memorandum addressed to the Director, CBI, New Delhi along with some documents which were taken on record and considered during the course of investigation. During investigation, the order of this Court dated 29.10.2009 was taken into consideration, but the relevant materials available with the Registry of this Court have not been made available by the Registry of this Court despite their letter written on 19.11.2009 and subsequent reminders sent on 15.12.2009 and 27.01.2010. The order passed by the Apex Court in the SLP filed by the four senior police officers was also considered by this respondent at the time of filing of Charge Sheet.
12. The first respondent states that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had specifically stayed the direction given by this Court to the State Government in para 602(III) of its judgment dated 29.10.2009 under Clause ''b'' and ''c'' of the findings of this Court, which relate to the departmental action against the senior police officers and their suspension. Since the findings of this Court against other police officers have now been taken cognizance of by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the SLP and stayed, there is no question of contempt against CBI officials. Further, since further investigation against other police officers is continuing u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C., the reply affidavit of Mr. A.K.Viswanathan, IPS., the then Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) in the Contempt Proceedings would be considered during further investigation.
13. It is true that this respondent filed a status report before this Court on 27.08.2009, but this Court was not monitoring the investigation. Therefore the allegation that this respondent is attempting to shield the senior police officers and the investigation is being conducted with bias are all false and without any basis. Investigation was carried out in a free and fair manner without any external pressure or influence. The copies of charge sheets in both the cases were personally handed over to the Registrar-Cum-Private Secretary to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court, on 13.01.2010 under due acknowledgment and the CBI also had sent one letter on 21.01.2010 to the Registrar General of this Court conveying the filing of final reports by CBI in R.C. No. 1(S)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai and Rc.2(S)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai.
14. It is stated that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.02.2010 made in this Crl. O.P. No. 2463/2010, CBI deposited the case diary files and communications exchanged, etc. in CBI case No. RC.2(S)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai with the Registrar (Judicial) on 04.02.2010. As the CBI is not in possession of the case diary files, this respondent could not continue the further investigation as directed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide order dated 21.01.2010. In fact, this petitioner Association along with two other Advocate Associations filed a Memorandum before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. By order dated 21.01.2010, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, recorded the contention of the petitioner that there are several other documents, photographs, media clippings to implicate other officials and men of the police force apart from the aforesaid senior police officers and ordered to furnish all the available materials and granted time till 05.02.2010 for that purpose. There was a further direction that on receipt of further evidence, both oral and documentary, investigation officer was required to investigate further in accordance with law and to file the further report on or before 22.02.2010. But the petitioner did not produce any additional material before the investigating officer. Without complying with the order dated 21.01.2010 of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court on 02.02.2010. Since the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is already seized of the matter, monitoring by this Court may not be necessary. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
15. For the petitions filed by the impleaded party, CBI has filed a detailed counter affidavit reiterating the averments made in the counter statement and sought for the dismissal of both the petitions.
16. The Registrar General of this Court by his report dated 12.07.2013 in both the petitions has stated that in compliance with the directions of this Court records received were kept in the safe custody of the Registrar (Judicial) and the records could be released to CBI if necessary orders are passed by this Court. In the last hearing on 01.07.2013, it was stated that a comprehensive report would be submitted covering the documents/records submitted by the CBI to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as per the said orders and also other documents/records which have been directed to be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar General of this Court as per the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the common order dated 29.10.2009. The details of the documents under the custody of the Registry in two trunk boxes and with the Registrar General are submitted in Annexure I and Annexure II respectively.
17. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel/the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent police in both the Criminal Original Petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded party. We have also gone through the documents made available on record including the counter-statements filed by the first respondent.
18. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Criminal Original Petitions is that thousands of unruly Tamil Nadu Armed Police men entered into the premises of this Court without permission and attacked the Hon''ble Judges, litigants and the staff brutally resulting in causing severe injuries with bleeding. Even the Advocates were inhumanly chased out of the campus and attacked very cruelly. This is an attack caused not on the Advocates, Judges and litigants but on the temple of justice. Besides the physical attack they also ransacked and damaged the chambers belonging to the Advocates and Judges of the High Court, City Civil Court and Small Causes Court. The Court halls were also ransacked and damaged in the campus and they also damaged the entire articles kept therein. Besides that the Tamil Nadu Armed Police Mob destroyed all the vehicles, both two wheelers and four wheelers parked in the premises of this Court. In fact a thorough search was made to attack and damage of all persons and all vehicles. The Advocates were beaten mercilessly and the police also pelted stones on the Advocates and Judges. Every litigant, Advocates and others who were in the campus were severely beaten and they suffered serious injuries.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners further added that consequent upon this brutal attack, on the same day, i.e. on 19.02.2009 the First Bench of this Court initiated proceedings in Suo Moto writ petition in W.P. No. 3335/2009 and issued several directions to the Government and to the police officials. CBI was also directed to conduct an investigation regarding the occurrence that took place on 19.02.2009 in the High Court campus. After several rounds of litigation before this Court and the Hon''ble Apex Court, the above writ petition was finally listed before the Bench consisting of the Hon''ble Justice R.Banumathi and Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla on 29.10.2009 and on the same day the Division bench passed a detailed order finding fault with the police officials namely Mr. Radhakrishnan, the then COP, Mr. A.K.Viswanathan, the then Addl. COP, Chennai, Mr. Ramasubramanian, the then JCP (North) and Mr. Prem Anand Sinha, the then DCP, Flower Bazaar and also directed the State Government to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against them and direction was also issued to the CBI to proceed with the investigation in R.C. No. 1(S)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai registered against the lawyers and to proceed with the investigation in R.C. No. 2(S)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai registered against the Police expeditiously and file a final report in both the cases within three months.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as against the order passed by the Division Bench on 29.10.2009, the aggrieved police officials preferred an appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 33221-225 of 2009, in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has only stayed the operation of (b) and (c) and direction No. 3 of the order of this Court, under the heading Direction to the Government and it has been made clear in that order that the order shall not prevent the State Government from taking appropriate action in accordance with law. The said SLP is pending till date. In the SLP, no stay was granted for the direction issued to the CBI. Thereafter the CBI in R.C.No.2(S)/2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai registered against the police filed a final report on 12.01.2010, in which only five police constables were charge sheeted and they were held to be responsible for such an inhuman, violent and vigorous attack made by thousands of Tamil Nadu Armed Police men. In fact, the incident of 19.02.2009 in the Court campus was video-graphed by the leading medias, press, etc. and it was also telecast live and watched by the public at large throughout the country. In the CBI final report, surprisingly only five Constables have been charge sheeted which is not a complete report and it is only a report to satisfy the Government. It is further submitted on the side of the petitioners that the documentary evidence, photographs, videographs were submitted before the CBI and ignoring the same, the CBI wantonly filed a final report which is totally false and unbelievable. Thus according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the charge sheet is vague and a faulty one. He adds that when a Division Bench of this Court passed a final order, wherein elaborate discussions had taken place with regard to the incident dated 19.02.2009, the Charge sheets filed by the CBI is totally bereft of particulars and runs contrary to the order of the Division Bench. Only when all the Associations filed several petitions before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai requesting him not to accept the report filed by the CBI as final report, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai directed the CBI to investigate further and then to file a final report.
21. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the matter was posted before the learned Single Judge, the learned Judge of this Court on 18.02.2010 gave a direction to post the matter before the Division Bench of this Court. The approach of the CBI is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. They have filed a report disregarding and disrespecting the voluminous documents available with regard to the unfortunate incident that had taken place in the High Court campus on 19.02.2009. Since the Tamil Nadu Police Officials are responsible for the occurrence that had taken place on 19.02.2009 in the High Court campus, the CBI was directed to conduct investigation of the case and file a charge sheet. Curiously the charge sheet filed is incomplete and bereft of particulars and not referred to any of the documents, materials furnished by the Association/petitioner herein. Hence the learned counsel submits that the above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed for the aforesaid prayer. The learned counsel for the petitioners insisted for an appropriate direction being given as sought for.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases would add that the investigation in this case has not been done properly by the CBI and they have safely drafted the final report and omitted to include the senior police officers and other police officers who were involved in the attack. According to him, the mere fact of laying charge sheet fixing the responsibility only on five Constables itself would show that they are trying to hide the truth and cover up the whole issue in order to protect the interest of the police officials. Therefore he adds that the investigation could be taken away from CBI and handed it over to Special Investigation Team, as done in the case of
23. The learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the various photographs, documents and other materials filed before this Court would stress that the investigation done and final report submitted by the CBI is absolutely bereft of particulars and it is not a final report in the manner known to law. He complaints that they have purposely and deliberately covered up the issue and protected the police officers, who were directly present on the scene on that day giving instructions for the brutal attack.
24. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. M.Ravindran representing Mr. Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI while reiterating the averments made in the reply affidavit submitted on the side of the first respondent Department would state that the petitioner Association have to be blamed for not having produced any additional materials before the Investigating Officer. According to him R.C.No.1(S)/2009 was registered against the Advocates by the Police Department and R.C.No.2(S)/2009 was registered by CBI against unknown police officials. Further he adds that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide his order dated 21.01.2010 recorded the contention of the petitioners that there were several other documents, photographs, media clippings to implicate other officials and men of the police force apart from the aforesaid police officers and granted time to the Advocates till 05.02.2010 for furnishing all the available materials with regard to this case. There was also further direction that on receipt of further evidence both oral and documentary, the Investigation Officer was required to investigate further in accordance with law and to file the final report on or before 22.02.2010. But it is his specific case that the Association did not produce any additional materials before the Investigating Officer. Without complying with the direction issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the petitioners have approached this Court levelling all allegations which are false and baseless. In fact, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is already seized of the matter. Therefore there was no need for this Court monitoring the same. While referring to a few judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that exercising good deal of pressure on the Investigating Agency as it is being done now should be avoided. Moreover according to him, though final report has been filed, investigation is still going on and as and when the relevant materials and documents are produced before the Investigation Agency, certainly, the same would be looked into and appropriate report would be filed after evaluating, appreciating and examining the same. He adds that in R.C.No.1(S)/2009 one charge sheet was filed on 12.01.2010 and on the same day, five charge sheets were filed in R.C.No.2(S)/2009. In fact by referring to the charge sheet, he would add that the investigation is yet to be completed and the petitioners'' approach to this Court at this stage is nothing but an interference in the investigation which could have been avoided. Therefore, according to him, the allegations and averments made by the petitioners are too premature and they could wait for further report to be submitted by the first respondent which they are ready to do it on getting further relevant materials.
25. We have heard the rival submissions carefully.
26. Normally, when the investigation is in progress, the Court cannot direct the Investigation Agency to submit a report in accordance with the court''s own view. Certainly, the Court can give directions for prompt investigation, but the Court could not direct the Investigating Agency to submit a report that is in accordance with its views and that would amount to unwarranted interference with the investigation of the case by inhibiting the exercise of statutory power by the Investigating Agency. No doubt this Court has got powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the public authority to perform its duties in accordance with law when it is brought to the notice that the said functions are not being discharged by the said public authority in a manner known to law. In this case, it has been specifically brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners and the second respondent that investigation done by the first respondent and filing of a final report are not done in the proper manner and therefore they seek transfer of Investigating Agency.
27. Though a number of allegations and malafides levelled against the first respondent, we are not able to subscribe to the same for the reason that the investigation according to the CBI is yet to be completed and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigative process as they are proceeding in the right direction. From the submissions made and the materials available, we are unable to come to a conclusion that the Investigating Agency/first respondent herein are misusing its powers and conducting investigation deliberately suppressing vital and material issues. At this stage, it cannot be said that the final report has been prepared deliberately to cover up the issue. The investigation is pending and the CBI has stated that on getting further materials they would proceed with further investigation. Therefore, to do complete justice to all the parties concerned, the first respondent herein is hereby directed to examine in detail all the materials, documents, photographs that would be furnished by the petitioner Association (if not already given) and to continue with the further investigation as expeditiously as possible. Further, it cannot be stated that the investigation has been tardy and slow so as to find fault with the first respondent. When CBI itself has come forward to state that further investigation is pending, we are sure that the further investigation will be done properly and diligently by the first respondent as the matter involves questionable conduct of police personnel entering the High Court premises and attacking the Judges, Advocates and the litigants at large. The courts, and in particular the High Courts and the Supreme Court, are the sentinels of justice and have been vested with extraordinary powers of judicial review and supervision to ensure that the rights of the citizens are duly protected. The Courts have to maintain a constant vigil against the inaction of the authorities in discharging their duties and obligations in the interest of the citizens for whom they exist. This Court, have had to issue appropriate writs and directions from time to time to ensure that the authorities performed at least such duties as they were required to perform under the various statutes and orders passed by the administration. It is needless to add that with this order passed by this Court, the Investigating Authorities/CBI would deal with the matter with all seriousness and bring those wrong doers/erring officials to book and to submit an additional charge sheet in accordance with law at the earliest.
28. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we do not consider this case as a proper and fit case for transferring from the first respondent to some other Agency. Therefore while disposing of these two Criminal Original Petitions, we direct all the petitioners herein and the second respondent/impleaded party to submit all the documents, photographs, media clippings and other relevant materials which according to them would be helpful for further investigation to the first respondent CBI immediately or atleast within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such materials being furnished to them, the first respondent/CBI shall proceed with the further investigation with all seriousness, having regard to the above observations made by this Court in mind and file an additional final report based on new materials and documents within a period of three months thereafter. This Court is of the hope that the first respondent would not create a situation, compelling this Court to transfer the investigation to some other Agency and would proceed to investigate the matter without any favour or bias towards anyone.
29. In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
