Agency be given 'free-hand' during investigation: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: A probe agency must be given a "free hand" to conduct its investigation, the Delhi high court has said, allowing the police to conduct test identification parade (TIP) of articles worth crores recovered after solving a robbery.
Overruling objections by the owner of a courier company that was robbed, the HC permitted the police to go ahead with TIP of case property where 89 different owners had given consignment to the company for safe transport.
"This court is of the considered opinion that the investigating agency, unless found to have committed some illegality, should be given a free hand for the purpose of conducting the investigation. Investigating officers or their supervisory officers are expected to take the best decision for the purpose of ensuring that the guilty persons are brought to the book and justice is dispensed to the complainant," justice D K Sharma noted in a recent order.
HC set aside the orders of the magistrate and the sessions judge denying the police plea for a TIP on the ground that it won't serve any useful purpose. It noted that even the magistrate was of the view that the application for TIP should have been moved earlier. "This might have been a slip on the part of the IO but for this the right of the investigating officer to get the TIP conducted cannot be taken away," HC observed.
"Upon registration of FIR on receipt of information of cognisable offence, the duty of the investigating agency to conduct the investigation commences. It is a settled proposition that the investigation agency has to be given a free hand for the purpose of conducting the investigation except in the cases where there is violation of principle of natural justice or some illegality has been conducted. Except in the exceptional cases, the domain of the investigation remains with the investigating agency," HC re-iterated, allowing the appeal filed by the police.
In their plea, the police challenged the order on the ground that in many of the bills furnished in the case lodged by complainant Jai Mata Di logistics, only weight and value has been given and description of the articles has not been provided. Some of the bills are not even supported by photographs, requiring a TIP.
However, the courier company opposed the plea arguing that the consignor is in best position to identify the recovered articles and it would be totally impractical to call 89 different owners for the purpose of identification of the case property. It also contended that once the articles have been ordered to be released to the person who was in lawful custody of the articles, there is no reason whatsoever for identification of these.