"Violates principles of natural justice": Supreme Court criticizes Madras High Court for retaining inquiry report in sealed cover

The Supreme Court on Friday criticised the Madras High Court for the manner in which dealt with a corruption case lodged against a former State Minister [SP Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam and Ors]..A Bench of the Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli frowned upon the High Court's decision to keep an enquiry report against the SP Velumani, the appellant before the Court, in a sealed cover."When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover", the judgment stated..The Court was considering an appeal filed by Velumani against the order of the Madras High Court declining him access to the preliminary enquiry report against him. .The case arose out of a private complaint filed against the appellant alleging that while he was serving as a Minister, he misused his powers by influencing the tender process to ensure that tenders were awarded to his close aides. The High Court had directed R Ponni, Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was required to submit a report on the probe to the High Court in a sealed cover. After the report was filed, the AIADMK government, of which the appellant was a part, decided to close the case. As the government changed, it changed its stance and informed the High Court that it intends to conduct further investigation into the matter.Subsequently, a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public, servant) read with Section 120B (Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC.The High Court denied the appellant's request to be supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. .The top court held that the High Court should have perused the enquiry report, instead of leaving the decision completely in the hands of the government. "Once the enquiry was completed, the High Court failed to even peruse the said report. Rather, the High Court left the decision completely in the hands of the State Government. Such an approach, as adopted by the High Court in the present matter, cannot be countenanced in law," the top court ordered..It also berated the State government for changing its stance on the issue, noting,"It is a settled principle that the State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. When the State Government changed its stand, the High Court neither provided the appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a reasoned justification from the State for having turned turtle.".The Court also rejected the contention of the State that documents need not be provided to the accused until cognizance is taken up the Magistrate under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Considering the background of the case, it was held that the requirement under Section 207 of the CrPC cannot be read as a "provision etched into stone" as it will violate the rights of the appellant and the principles of natural justice. .The Bench thus issued the following directions while disposing the appeal: High Court to supply the copy of the preliminary report to the appellant along with other documents;Writ petitions are restored before the High Court which must be disposed of on their own merit; andAppellant is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for quashing of FIR before the High Court. .Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi along with Advocate-on-Record Gaurav Aggarwal appeared for Velumani. Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar S and V Krishnamoorthy along with Advocates Joseph Aristotle and Gautam Narayan appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]