Sanjay Chandra v CBI
Case: Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Supreme Court of India, 2012
Citation: (2012) 1 SCC 40
Facts of the Case:
Sanjay Chandra, along with others, was an accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, one of the largest corruption cases in India. The case involved allegations of irregularities and illegal allocation of telecom licenses by the Government of India at below-market prices, causing huge loss to the public exchequer.
The CBI filed chargesheets against Sanjay Chandra and others, accusing them of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act.
One of the key issues raised by Sanjay Chandra was regarding his custodial interrogation by the CBI and the legality of the police custody granted for investigation.
Issues:
Whether custodial interrogation was justified in the case of Sanjay Chandra?
Whether the CBI had followed proper procedure before taking him into custody?
Whether the custodial interrogation violated the fundamental rights of the accused under the Constitution?
What are the safeguards and guidelines governing custodial interrogation?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered a detailed judgment addressing the scope of custodial interrogation in high-profile and complex economic offenses. The Court observed the following:
Custodial interrogation can be necessary in complex cases like economic offenses, where gathering evidence requires questioning in custody.
However, custodial interrogation must follow strict procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
The Court reiterated that custodial interrogation should be the exception, not the rule, and only ordered where it is absolutely necessary.
The CBI must record reasons in writing justifying the need for custody, and the accused must be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, as required under Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court emphasized that the police must respect the dignity of the accused and ensure that custodial interrogation does not turn into custodial torture or abuse.
Ultimately, the Court refused to interfere with the CBI’s custody in this particular instance but laid down important principles and safeguards for future cases.
Important Legal Principles and Guidelines:
Section 57 CrPC:
It requires that when a person is arrested and taken into custody for interrogation, the police must produce the person before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
Article 21 of the Constitution:
Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection against arbitrary arrest and custodial torture.
Safeguards Against Custodial Abuse:
The Court reiterated the guidelines from earlier landmark judgments ensuring that custodial interrogation is conducted fairly and humanely.
Relevant Case Law Referenced:
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416:
Landmark guidelines for preventing custodial torture and abuse were laid down, including the police’s duty to inform a relative or friend about the arrest, medical examination of the accused, and recording of interrogation.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260:
Established that arrest must be based on reasonable suspicion and cannot be arbitrary.
Raman Sasi v. Union of India (1996) 7 SCC 475:
Emphasized the protection of human rights during police custody.
Summary:
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI is a key Supreme Court decision addressing custodial interrogation in the context of serious economic offenses. The judgment:
Affirms that custodial interrogation may be necessary for complex investigations but must be conducted under strict safeguards.
Reinforces the constitutional rights of the accused against arbitrary arrest and torture.
Requires procedural compliance under the CrPC to prevent abuse of power by investigating agencies.
Builds on earlier landmark judgments protecting human rights during police custody.
RELATED Blog
0 comments