P. DHARAMARAJ versus SHANMUGAM & ORS.

20. All that this Court pointed out in paragraph 11 of the decision in Sanjay Tiwari (supra) was that an application for expediting the trial, filed by a person who is in no way connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trial cannot “ordinarily be entertained by the High Court.”

21. The decision in Janata Dal vs. H.S Chowdhary and Others4 cited in paragraphs 12 and 13 of Sanjay Tiwari also has no application to the case on hand. In Janata Dal (supra), which arose out of Bofors 4 (1991) 3 SCC 756 P. DHARAMARAJ v. SHANMUGAM & ORS. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] case, the Special Court allowed an application of CBI to conduct necessary investigation and to collect necessary evidence, in Switzerland. A letter rogatory was also issued. At that stage an Advocate by name H.S. Chowdhary filed a petition in public interest before the Special Judge, invoking Article 51A of the Constitution. He sought several reliefs including a direction not to issue letter rogatory and to allow him to join the enquiry before the Special Court in the capacity of a public interest litigant. The Special Court dismissed the petition filed by H.S. Chowdhary, but took up for consideration suo moto, the question as to whether any action under Section 340 of the Cr.PC. should be initiated or not. The order of the Special Judge was challenged by H.S. Chowdhary by way of revision before the High Court. The High Court held that H.S. Chowdhary did not have any locus standi to maintain the petition. It was the said order that was challenged by H.S. Chowdhary before this Court. The order of the Special Judge taking suo moto action was also challenged by political parties.

22. While disposing of those appeals, this Court held that a third party has no locus standi in a matter of this nature. It must be noted that the attempt made by H.S. Chowdhary was to upset the move initiated by CBI to have a letter rogatory issued. He also wanted the FIR to be quashed. It is in that context that this Court answered the question of locus standi as aforesaid.

23. Today, we have travelled a long way from the position of law as it stood then. By Act 5 of 2009, the definition of the word “victim” was inserted in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. It reads thus: “victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir.” Simultaneously, a proviso was also inserted under Section 372 of the Code providing a right of appeal to the victims.

24. In fact, long before the aforesaid amendment, the question of locus standi was considered by this Court in P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam and Another5. The said case arose under peculiar circumstances. A person who was convicted by the Sessions Court for an offence under Section 302 and whose conviction was set aside by 5 (1980) 3 SCC 141 the High Court, was convicted by this Court in a criminal appeal, filed not by the State, but by the brother of the victim, though he was neither the complainant nor the first informant. Thereafter, the accused filed a writ petition under Article 32 contending that this Court had no power to grant special leave to the brother of the victim to file an appeal against the judgment of the High Court. While rejecting the contention, Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (as he then was) said in his inimitable style: “……the bogey of busybodies blackmailing adversaries through frivolous invocation of Article136 is chimerical. Access to Justice to every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension of remedial jurisprudence even as public interest litigation, class action, pro bono proceedings, etc. We cannot dwell in the home of processual obsolescence when our Constitution highlights social justice as a goal.” Therefore, the objection about the locus standi of the appellants is without any merit. In any case, the appellant in one of these appeals, is a victim, as he could not get selected on account of the alleged corrupt practices. Therefore, the contention regarding the locus standi of the appellants is to be rejected.

25. In fact, it is surprising that the de facto complainant Shri Arulmani has raised the question of locus standi. It is seen from his complaint dated 13.08.2018 that he is working in the Technical Wing of the factory of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation. Therefore, he should not have, in the first instance, become a party to the transactions narrated in his complaint. After having been a party to the collection of money for illegitimate purposes, even while working in the Transport Corporation, the de facto complainant Shri Arulmani has committed the second mistake of filing an affidavit supporting the compromise and claiming therein as though he never made allegations against the Minister.

26. The stand taken by Arulmani before the High Court is deplorable for one more reason. It is seen from an entry in the FIR out of which the present case arises, that Arulmani filed a criminal original petition in Crl. O.P.No. 24029 of 2017 on the file of the High Court, complaining that he lodged a complaint against these 4 accused way back on 21.09.2017 and that no action was taken. On 16.11.2017, the High Court passed an order directing the Police to act in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government P. DHARAMARAJ v. SHANMUGAM & ORS. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] of Uttar Pradeshand Others6. It is only thereafter that the Police registered the FIR in Crime No. 344 of 2018 on 13.08.2018. Therefore, we would have hardly expected Shri Arulmani to say that the allegations against the Minister were added up later by the Police and that it was a simple money dispute. His present stand supporting the accused and questioning the locus standi of the appellants, is, to say the least, shocking and warrants something more than mere condemnation. We leave it at that in the hope that the employer and the State would take notice of his conduct. Suffice it to say for our present purpose that the objection relating to the locus standi of the appellants is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. The Effect of the compromise and the non-inclusion of the offences under the P.C. Act

27. The second issue arising for consideration is about the effect of the compromise entered into between the de facto complainant and 13 named victims on the one hand and the 4 accused on the other hand.

28. As we have pointed out earlier, the FIR was registered only for offences under Sections 405, 420 & 506(1) of the IPC. This was despite the fact that the allegations contained in the complaint very clearly pointed to payment of money for procuring employment in the Public Transport Corporation. We have already extracted the entire complaint in paragraph 5(i) above. It was stated in the said complaint that in the year 2014, an announcement for filling up vacant posts of Conductor and Driver in the Transport Corporation was issued and that the complainant got introduced to one Mr. Rajkumar. In fact there is also an averment in the complaint that in the first week of January 2015, the complainant went along with the said Rajkumar to the residence of Thiru Senthil Balaji at R.A. Puram and that the amount of Rs.40 lakhs was paid therein to Shri Shanmugam, P.A. to the Minister. The complainant had gone on to state that upon his insistence, he was allowed to meet the Minister and his brother and that the Minister and his brother assured him that all those who gave money would definitely be given appointment orders.

29. It must be recalled that though the FIR came to be registered only on 13.08.2018, it was actually in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court on 16.11.2017 in Crl. O.P. No. 24029 of 2017. Therefore, 6 (2014) 2 SCC 1 we are surprised that the FIR did not include the offences under the P.C. Act, 1988.

30. While filing a final report, the Investigation Officer seems to have been little more gracious by including Section 409 IPC, since Sh. Shanmugam, the person who received the money from the complainant and the victims was stated to be a Personal Assistant to the Minister. Additionally, the money was said to have been paid at the residence of the Minister with his knowledge and the Minister is stated (in the FIR) to have acknowledged that those who paid money will be rewarded with the appointment orders.

31. Thus it is clear that the final report implicated the accused for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506(1) IPC. None of these offences except the one under Section 506 IPC is compoundable under sub-Section (1) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. The offences under Sections 406 and 420 are compoundable under sub-Section (2) of Section 320.

32. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 makes it clear that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by the Section. Therefore, there was no way the offence under Section 409 IPC, included in the final report, could have been compounded. As a matter of fact, the High Court has recognised in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order that the final report includes offences which are not compoundable. However, the High Court proceeded to quash the final report, purportedly on the basis of the guidelines issued by this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai (supra) and The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). Therefore we may now proceed to examine whether the High Court was right in doing so.

33. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another7, a three Member Bench of this Court was concerned with a reference made by a two Member Bench, which doubted the correctness of the decisions in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and another8, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.9 and Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others10.

34. B.S. Joshi (supra) was a case where the dispute was a family dispute and the offences complained were under Sections 498A, 323 and 406. Therefore, this Court appears to have taken a lenient view. 7 (2012) 10 SCC 303 8 (2003) 4 SCC 675 9 (2008) 9 SCC 677 10 (2008) 16 SCC 1 P. DHARAMARAJ v. SHANMUGAM & ORS. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

35. Nikhil Merchant (supra) is a case where a borrower committed default in repayment of the loans taken from Andhra Bank. Apart from filing a suit for recovery of money, the Bank also filed a criminal complaint both against the officers of the company and against the officers of the bank, not only for offences under the IPC but also for offences under the PC Act. After the suit was compromised, the Managing Director of the borrower Company sought to get discharged from the complaint. The special Judge (CBI) rejected the application for discharge. The High Court confirmed the same. But this Court reversed the decision of the High Court, solely on the ground that the amount payable to the Bank stood settled. However, it must be noticed that in Nikhil Merchant, the operative portion of the order of this Court merely stated that the criminal proceedings were quashed against the appellant therein. There is no indication therein that the complaint against the officers for offences under the P.C. Act were also quashed.

36. Manoj Sharma (supra) was a case where the offences complained were under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 read with Section 120B IPC. Though this Court quashed the criminal complaint in the said case also, one of the learned Judges constituting the Bench (Markandey Katju, J.) reserved the question regarding the power of the High Court to quash non-compoundable cases under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution, on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties, to be decided by a larger bench at an appropriate time. Paragraph 27 of the decision in Manoj Sharma which contains the opinion of Markandey Katju, J., reads as follows: “27. There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or 304- B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor’s foot.”

37. Therefore in Gian Singh (supra), the three Member Bench of this Court took up for consideration the question regarding the difference between the power of the court to quash a complaint/charge- sheet and the power to compound an offence. After analysing the statutory provisions and the various decisions of this Court, this Court summarised the position, in paragraph 61 of its decision in Gian Singh, as follows: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, P. DHARAMARAJ v. SHANMUGAM & ORS. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

38. After Gian Singh, this Court was concerned in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another11 with the perennial problem of courts swinging from one extreme to the other in respect of cases involving offences under Section 307 IPC. A via media was struck by this Court in the said decision, by holding that it would be open to the High Court to go into the nature of the injury sustained, nature of the weapons used etc. This was after holding that an offence under Section 307 would fall in the category of heinous and serious offence.

39. Then came the decision in State of Maharashtra through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Others12, where this Court was concerned with an order of the High Court of Bombay quashing the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 120B IPC. It was a case involving credit facilities provided by the Banks and the failure of the borrowers to repay the loan. After the debts due to the bank were assigned in favour of an Asset Reconstruction Company, a settlement was reached and the borrower took a “No Due Certificate”. 11 (2014) 6 SCC 466 12 (2014) 15 SCC 29 Therefore, relying upon the decisions of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab13 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others14, the High Court of Bombay quashed the proceedings on the ground that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the matter to proceed for trial. It is interesting to note that Madan Mohan (supra), as seen from the last paragraph of the order, was passed in the peculiar facts of the case. But in so far as A. Ravishankar Prasad (supra) is concerned, the High Court quashed the proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the borrowers and the Indian Bank. But the decision of the High Court was over turned, by a two Judge Bench of this Court even after taking note of B.S.Joshi and Nikhil Merchant. In paragraph 46 of its decision, this Court said in A. Ravishankar Prasad :- “46. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that mere repayment of loan under a settlement cannot exempt the accused from the criminal proceeding in the facts of this case.”

40. Therefore, in Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra), this Court took note of the aforesaid decisions and held in paragraph 26 as follows:- “26. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Be it stated, that availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which has been skillfully contrived, if the allegations are true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It has the potentiality to usher in economic crisis. Its implications have its own seriousness, 13 (2008) 4 SCC 582 14 (2009) 6 SCC 351 P. DHARAMARAJ v. SHANMUGAM & ORS. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] for it creates a concavity in the solemnity that is expected in financial transactions. It is not such a case where one can pay the amount and obtain a “no dues certificate” and enjoy the benefit of quashing of the criminal proceeding on the hypostasis that nothing more remains to be done. The collective interest of which the Court is the guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. The High Court, we humbly remind, should have dealt with the matter keeping in mind that in these kinds of litigations the accused when perceives a tiny gleam of success, readily invokes the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceeding. The Court’s principal duty, at that juncture, should be to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement. It is the experience of the Judge that comes to his aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence. As we find in the case at hand the learned Single Judge has not taken pains to scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and quashed the criminal proceeding. The said quashment neither helps to secure the ends of justice nor does it prevent the abuse of the process of the court nor can it be also said that as there is a settlement no evidence will come on record and there will be remote chance of conviction. Such a finding in our view would be difficult to record. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the social interest would be on peril and the prosecuting agency, in these circumstances, cannot be treated as an alien to the whole case. Ergo, we have no other option but to hold that the order [Vikram Anantrai Doshi v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2239 of 2009, order dated 22-4-2010 (Bom)] of the High Court is wholly indefensible.

41. In Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), referred to by the High Court in the impugned order, a 3 member Bench of this Court again summarised the broad principles on this question in paragraph 16. Paragraph 16.6 and 16.8 to 16.10 of the decision read as follows:- “16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

42. Thus it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others.

43. As seen from the final report filed in this case and the counter affidavit filed by the I.O., persons who have adopted corrupt practices to secure employment in the Transport Corporation fall under two categories namely, (i) those who paid money and got orders of P. DHARAMARAJ v. SHANMUGAM & ORS. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] appointment; and (ii) those who paid money but failed to secure employment. If persons belonging to the 2nd category are allowed to settle their dispute by taking refund of money, the same would affix a seal of approval on the appointment of persons belonging to the 1st category. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise.

44. It is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder. Therefore we hold that the High Court was completely in error in quashing the criminal complaint.

45. Coming to the next issue regarding the non-inclusion in the final report, of the offences under the P.C. Act, the less said the better. In the counter affidavit filed by the I.O. to the writ petition W.P.No.9061 of 2021, filed by the non-selected candidates, the modus operandi adopted by the accused has been given in detail. We have provided a gist of the contents of such counter affidavit elsewhere in this judgment. We are constrained to say that even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the P.C. Act, out of the final report. The attempt of the I.O. appears to be of one, “willing to strike but afraid to wound” (the opposite of what Alexander Pope wrote in “Epistle to Dr.Arbuthnot”)15.

46. An argument was sought to be advanced as though the Minister was not involved and that Shri Shanmugam who is allegedly involved, was not the P.A. to the Minister. But this argument flies in the face of the contents of paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the I.O. in W.P. No.9061 of 2021 which reads as follows:- “11. It is respectfully submitted that, after the Notification process Tr.V.Senthil Balaji, then Minister for Transport instructed Tr.Sarangan, Special Officer, Tr.K.T.Govindarajan, Senior Deputy Manager, Administration, Tr. V.Venkadarajan, who were serving in the Chairman office, to collect the details regarding the day-to- day progress of the recruitment such as, sale of application, receipt 15 Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer, Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike, just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike. of filled application, interviews conducted, etc… Accordingly, they have collected the details from all the eight Transport Corporations through their email address ‘chotpt@gmail.com’ and on the same day, they transmitted it to the Minister’s office email id ‘ministertransport@yahoo.com’. The e-mail communications made between Chairman office and Transport Corporations on 03.11.2014, 04.11.2014 and 05.12.2014 from the office of the Chairman, Transport Corporations, Chennai. Many a time, the data had also been sent to Tr.M. Vetrichelvan, Public Relations Officer (PRO) of MTC to his email address ‘vetri67@gmailcom’, as he was very close to the then Transport Minister Tr.V. Senthil Balaji. It is pertinent to mention here that the e-mail named ‘ministertransport@yahoo.com’ had been maintained only by Tr.B.Shanmugam and not by any of the Personal Assistants of the Minister Tr.V.Senthil Balaji.” Therefore, the argument that there is nothing on record to show that Shri Shanmugam was appointed as P.A. to the Minister, is to be stated only to be rejected.

47. Yet another contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that there are two other cases where allegations of corruption are made and that CC No.25 of 2021 with which we are concerned now, did not involve allegations of corruption. But the said contention is abhorring, for the simple reason that all criminal complaints arose out of the very same cash-for-job scam. We are informed that the proceedings in respect of those two cases have also been stayed by the High Court. We do not know how the High Court could have stayed prosecution of persons under the P.C. Act, especially in matters of this nature.

48. As a matter of fact, the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money dispute.

49. The reliance placed by the respondents on an order passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on an earlier occasion in Criminal O.P.(MD)Nos.14067, 140967, 16023 of 2016, will not have bearing upon the present complaints. In fact, the SLP filed by a 3rd party against the order passed in those petitions was dismissed by this Court on 05.01.2017 even at the stage of permission to file SLP. Therefore the respondents cannot rely upon the same as if it constitutes a precedent. P. DHARAMARAJ v. SHANMUGAM & ORS. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.] Conclusion

50. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the High Court is wholly unsustainable. Therefore the appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The criminal complaint is restored to file. The I.O. shall now proceed under Section 173(8) of the Code to file a further report, based on the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Additionally/alternatively, the Special Court before which the CC is pending, shall exercise power under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., if there is any reluctance on the part of the State/I.O. If two other cases where offences under the P.C. Act are included, are under the orders of stay passed by the High Court, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated. The Court dealing with those two cases should also keep in mind the disastrous effect of putting on hold the prosecution under the P.C. Act.

51. At present we are not passing any orders on the prayer made by the intervenors either to constitute a Special Investigation Team or to appoint Special Public Prosecutor, since we do hope that based on the observations made above, the State itself may do the needful. We also make it clear that at the time of trial, the Special Court may not be swayed by the observations contained herein, but proceed on the merits of the case and the law on the points. The appeals are allowed. I.As stand closed. Devika Gujral Appeals allowed. (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)