Accused does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency".
The accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for court-monitored investigation. No one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
- The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy.
- Unless there is an express or implied constitutional prohibition or other law, evidence placed as a result of even an illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.
- If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiency, Courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law.
- It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.
- In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases this Court can even constitute Special Investigation Team and also give appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments and other authorities to give all required assistance to such specially constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution.
- While entrusting the criminal prosecution with other instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special Investigation Team, the High Court or this Court can also monitor such investigation in order to ensure proper conduct of the prosecution.
- In appropriate cases even if the charge-sheet is filed it is open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any other independent agency in order to do complete justice.
- In exceptional circumstances the Court in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers necessary may direct for investigation de novo.
please see -
- CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, 1997 Cri LJ 63
- Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79
- Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 1
- E. Sivakumar v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 365
- Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542
- Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 (paras 40 and 42)
- Ram Jethmalani Vs. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1 - also.
