- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This order has to be read in continuation of our order dated November 5, 1996 passed in Civil Appeals Nos. 14164-65 of 1996, Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 500 . These appeals by special leave are against some portions of the order dated November 13, 1996 and December 19, 1996 passed by the Patna High Court in the same matter - C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 1996 with C.W.J.C. No. 602 of 1996 - as a sequel thereto. The material facts need not be reiterated as they are mentioned in our aforesaid order dated November 5, 1996.
(3.) When the matter was taken up in the Patna High Court subsequent to our aforesaid order dated November 5, 1996, during the further proceedings after our order, the High Court has made the two orders dated November 13, 1996 and December 19, 1996. The learned Attorney General, on behalf of the appellants, has indicated certain portions of these two orders and contended that they do not match with our earlier order dated November 5, 1996. It would be appropriate at this stage to quote those portions of the two orders to which grievance is made by the learned attorney General. These are: In order dated November 13, 1996: Portion A: " The Supreme Court has not laid down the modality of making reference to the Attorney General in case of difference of opinion. What if the Director does not make the reference on his own. According to us, this can be sorted out by asking the Director, C.B.I. to submit the complete report(s) submitted by the Joint Director and/or other Investigating Officers so that in the event Court finds that there is difference of opinion, which requires resolution by the Attorney General, the same may be referred to him." Portion B: "The aforesaid aspects of the matter as also other aspects, which were briefly mentioned during the course of hearing today, can be more properly and effectively discussed in the presence of the Director C.B.I. himself. He is also to be told about the import of the Supreme Courts orders. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the next hearing should take place in his presence." In order dated December 19, 1996. Whole of para 4, particularly the following: Portion C: "......... the present case is the only case of its kind in which investigation is being monitored by the High Court ..... in the interest of proper and effective monitoring of the case we think it appropriate to direct that the final report which is submitted to the C.B.I. Headquarters / Director be submitted in its original form ..... The correct position, which emerges from the order of the Supreme Court, is that the report of the Joint Director is not to be submitted to this Court directly, the same has to be sent to the Director, CBI / Headquarters and then the same is to be filed in this Court. As indicated above, there is a very thin line of distinction between vetting and editing and if this authority to vet the report submitted to him is given to the Director, he may as well edit a part of it. The proper course, no doubt, would be to hold discussions across the table between the Director, Joint Director and others whose presence may be considered necessary so that differences, if any, between them are ironed out and a unanimous report is submitted. However, if such unanimity is not possible to arrive at, the Director must submit the original report as submitted to him along with his comments / views so that this Court may consider that too and issue appropriate directions." In Para 5. the following: Portion D: "........In those cases also the conspiracy angle does not appear to have been gone into, which is so vital for proper investigation into the crimes and in respect of which judicial finding has been recorded in the main judgment." In Para 6. the following: Portion E: "In this connection we would also like to impress upon the Director to consider in consultation with the Joint Director the desirability of posting / retaining officers, who do not belong to this state or the state cadre. Keeping in view the involvement of a very large number of persons of different hue and kind, chances of their influencing persons having local background cannot be ruled out .............." In para 8, the following: Portion F: "...... The reports contain materials which constitute prima facie case against the persons concerned and it is not understandable as to why chargesheet cannot be submitted on the basis of the materials referred to therein ........" The learned Attorney General submitted that the above extracts of the two orders made by the High Court, in particular, are unwarranted apart from certain other observations therein which could have been avoided. In reply Shri Ram Jethmalani submitted that the observations of the High Court to be understood in the context as indicating the manner in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is required to conduct the Investigation. He submitted that a grievance of this kind by the C.B.I. does not appear to be appropriate.;