With regard to a news items which appeared in some sections of the local press on 3rd November 2006, the Senior Superintendent of Police, JI Yaden has clarified that “it appears the reporter has not understood the importance of the Order of the Special Judge, Dimapur and blamed the Vigilance Commission for gross incompetence and inefficiency. It is understood that the order of bail passed by the learned Special Judge was not passed because of the requisition of warrants and remands from an incompetent court i.e. the ADC (J) Kohima has insinuated by the reporter. The writing on the wall is for all to see that the bail was granted as it was a bailable offence and that the investigation was also completed. Such interpretation of the law by the reporter is counter productive that section 4 & 5 of the P.C. Act 1988 restricts issuance of warrants and orders of remands to the Special Judge in all stages of investigation. Such a diversion will give ample opportunity for the accused persons to manipulate and evade investigations at crucial junctures while contemplating seeking the required papers from the Special Judge in times of emergency by the investigating agencies.
It is a committal proceeding and cases have to be committed by a Subordinate Magistrate. Subordinate Magistrates have not been divested with the power of issue of warrants and orders of remands at the pre-trail stage. (Mr. Malhotra Vs. State FIR NE 1950 Act 492 at P.P. 499, 499-500).
In Sampath Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1993. (i) All India Criminal L.R. 348 at P.P. 350-351 (S.C.).
The apex court in its ruling has observed that, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have sent the final report to the Special Judge which alone competent to try the case. The apex court has not struck down the FIR or the normal functionary of the Magistrate in the pre-trial stages which negatively affirms that there is no bar on cognizance, issue of warrant and remand orders by a regular Magistrate.
In view of the superior courts decision as mention above, the Commission is of the opinion that it has not blundered in serving warrants and remand orders from a regular court. The reporter, by such misrepresentation of facts regarding the legal procedures adopted by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption one of the premier investigating agency in the state in this case, has caused an irreparable damage to the State Vigilance Commission by such misleading news item.”
As issued to DIPR by DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI–CORRUPTION
