Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART XII

INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE – Part XI Q.56 Supposing the Investigating Officer files a closure report to the effect that no case is made out for prosecuting the accused. 2 SCC 537 = AIR 1985 SC 1285 – 3 Judges – P. N. Bhagwati, Amarendra Nath Sen, B. P. Madon - JJ; Paras 10 and 11 of Union Public Service Commission v. Papaiah 7 SCC 614 = AIR 1997 SC 3876 – Dr. A. S. Anand, K. Venkataswami - JJ; Para 12 of Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar 4 SCC 359 = AIR 2006 SC 1937 – Arijit Pasayat, S. H. Kapadia - JJ; Paras 7 and 9 of Gangadher Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra 7 SCC 768 = AIR 2004 SC 4753 – Arijit Pasayat, C. K. Thakker – JJ – The First Informant alone is entitled to notice and not an injured person or a relative of the deceased both of whom are not first informants; Para 9 of Jakia Nasim Ahesan v. State of Gujarat 12 SCC 302 = AIR 2012 SC 243 – 3 Judges – D. K. Jain, P. Sathasivam, Aftab Alam – JJ – One of the Incidents which took place after the Godhra Train Burning Incident which took place on 27-02-2002 in Gujarat; Para 13 of Vasanti Dubei v. State of M.P. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C 2 SCC 532 = AIR 2014 SC 666 – 3 Judges - R. M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph – JJ – R. M. Lodha – Paras 1 to 65 and Madan B. Lokhur – Paras 66 to 107 held that prior approval of the Central Government under Section 6 A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is not necessary if the inquiry or investigation is conducted as per directions of the Constitutional Courts or are monitored by such Courts. Subsequently, in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI 2014 SCC 682 = AIR 2014 SC 2140 – 5 Judges – R. M. Lodha – CJI, A. K. Patnaik, S. J. Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra, F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla – JJ, Section 6 A of the DSPE Act was struck down by the Constitution Bench as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 1 SCC 554 = AIR 1980 SC 326- 3 Judges – R. S. Sarkaria, D. A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy - JJ).