SC surprised over CBI dealing with closure reports

What is the purpose of further investigation when you are taking a call for filing a closure report. This is a peculiar manner of investigation, a bench asked

The Supreme Court today expressed surprise over the CBI arriving at a decision to file a closure report in a given case and then going for further probe to examine a particular angle and said this was "a peculiar manner of investigation".

"What is the purpose of further investigation when you are taking a call for filing a closure report. This is a peculiar manner of investigation," a bench comprising Justices M B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A K Sikri observed.

The remark was made during the hearing of the plea in which an NGO has sought probe by Special Investigating Team (SIT) against former CBI Director Ranjit Sinha for allegedly scuttling investigation in a coal block allocation scam case, a charge denied by him.

Sinha's senior counsel Vikas Singh was making the submission that in all cases where decision is arrived at filing a closure report, further investigation was conducted on a particular angle and if any offence is made out at a later stage, the agency files a supplementary chargesheet or a report.

Singh said advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is appearing for NGO Common Cause, in his January 12 note placed before the apex court had alleged that Sinha, as the then CBI Director, had overruled the unanimous view of all other officials favouring filing of chargesheet against influential persons.

He said the Director had also gone with the unanimous view against submission of a closure report till further investigation on a particular angle was completed.

Bhushan said ultimately the closure report was not accepted by the apex court-appointed Special Public Prosecutor and Special CBI Judge, exclusively appointed to deal with coal scam cases, and later chargesheet was filed against private persons and public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act.

Singh referred to the apex court's May 8, 2013 order which directed maintenance of secrecy of the probe and said FIR under Official Secret Act should be lodged against Bhushan for procuring information on the progress of probe which was not even supposed to be shared with union ministers or even with the trial court.