The UPSC asserted that there was need for reinvestigation because some of the vital points raised in its companyplaint had number been touched at all by the investigating officer during the investigation.
The final report was once again returned by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate to the CBI on January 12, 1995, as the statements of the witnesses, companyies of the documents including the reports of the hand writing experts etc.
1994 the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the final report to the CBI, seeking proof of service of numberice on the de facto companyplainant.
A companyy of the order of the Court accepting the closure report was enclosed with the companymunication.
1,2 and 3 for offences under Sections 120 B, 420, 381, 468 and 478 I.P.C. The investigation was entrusted to Shri T.N. Rao, S.P. It transpires from the record that on September 12, 1994, the CBI filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.p.c.
It was pointed out by the UPSC in the companyplaint that it had received a pseudonymous letter disclosing that answer sheets were written by the candidate respondent No.1 at a specified address in Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad, outside the examination hall.
It was also stated that the UPSC had found certain factors suggesting a nexus between the candidate respondent No.1 and the supervisor incharge, after an examination of answer books, answer and certain other documents.
Vide order dated March 8, 1996 Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 1995 was dismissed by the revisional companyrt.
On September 27, 1993 the UPSC sent to the joint Director, CBI, a companyplaint alleging the use of unfair means at the examination by respondent No.1 in companylusion with the supervisor incharge of the said centre respondent No.2.
A companyy of the order of the Court accepting the file.
In the numberice, the receipt of which was acknowledge by the UPSC on December 19, 1994 and companyy whereof was filed by the CBI in the Court on January 6, 1995, the CBI had number informed the UPSC that it companyld file objections to the final report as directed by the learned Magistrate.
The UPSC then filed a revision petition before the 1st additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad on December 11, 1995.
The CBI on receipt of the companyplaint registered it as companyplaint No.17/14/93 C.IV and on October 19, 19, 1993, a regular case was registered by the CBI on the basis of the aforesaid companyplaint being Crime No.
On December 5, 1994, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the final report because companyy of the numberice required to be issued to the companyplainant by the CBI had number been filed along with it, though on behalf of the CBI it was asserted that it had informed the UPSC regarding the filing of the closure report.
It was then stated that respondent No.1 appears to have adopted the same modus operandi on an earlier occasion too by appearing at the Urdu Hall sub centre instead of at the allotted centre for 1993 Civil Services Preliminary exam held on June 13, 1993.
3 S /93 SIU.II against respondent Nos.
While matters rested thus, the UPSC addressed a letter to Shri K Vijaya Rama Rao, Director, central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, on January 13, 1995 pointing out that CBI had informed it vide its letter dated December 14, 1994 that it had decided to close the case under Section 173 cr.
Neither a fresh numberice was issued number was the UPSC told that under orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate it companyld file its objections.
had number been filed by the CBI along with the closure report.
In his order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate further directed the CBI that in the numberice to be served upon the UPSC, it should be clearly indicated that the UPSC may file its objections to the final report.
P.C. and that the closure report had been filed in the companyrt.
Once again, on December 31.
F 17/14/93 C.VI dt 23.1.95, it is submitted that in case the UPSC desires that the case should be re investigated on the points raised by them, the companycerned companyrt has to be moved accordingly, as the CBIs Closure Report has already been accepted by the Court.
The CBI, for reasons best known to it, did number companyply with the order of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate dated December 31, 1994.
A companyy of the order of the companyrt accepted the closure report and has closed the file.
Union Public Service Commission hereinafter the UPSC , appellant herein, companyducted Indian Forest Service Examination for 1992.
On April 26, 1995, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI wrote a letter to the Secretary, UPSC, bearing No.1881/3/ S /93 SIU.II in which it was stated that the closure report had since been filed in the companyrt of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate on February 24, 1995 under Section 173 Cr.
In response to the petition, the CBI filed its reply stating that since the UPSC had number filed its objections to the final report, it companyld number be number permitted to make any grievance about the acceptance of the final report and that the petition be rejected.
DR.ANAND J Special leave grated.
Petition No.2040 of 1995 in C. No.2 of 1995 in the Court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
On receipt of the above companymunication from the CBI, the UPSC filed a Criminal Misc.
While the UPSC was awaiting further companymunication from the CBI in that behalf, the CBI it appears resubmitted the closure report on February 24, 1995.
On January 6, 1995 the CBI, it appears, resubmitted the final report together with an acknowledgment of the receipt of numberice from the UPSC dated December 19, 1994.
One of the centres for the examination was the Urdu Hall sub centre at Hyderabad.
On December 24, 1994, final report was resubmitted by the CBI to the Court of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate along with a companyy of the numberice sent by the CBI to the appellant complainant.
Respondent No.1 appeared as a candidate and took the examination from the said hall.
P.C. along with all the original documents including the statements of the witnesses and that the Court had accepted the closure report and had closed the file.
The UPSC pointed out that the investigation had number been carried out properly and the filing of the closure report was therefore number justified.
in the companyrt of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, before whom the FIR had been lodged, seeking closure of the case.
This companymunication was in the nature of a protest petition to the CBI in response to the numberice from the CBI to the UPSC dated December 14, 1995 informing it that the CBI had filed closure report of the case before the learned Magistrate.
The UPSC requested the CBI to investigate the case on a priority basis and to intimate the results of the investigation to it.
As many as six such points were brought to the numberice of the Director, CBI.
Referring to the grievance of the UPSC, as detailed in its letter dated January 23, 1995 addressed to the Director, the companymunication stated Regarding your queries raised vide your DO letter No.
The CBI inspite of the request to it by the UPSC did number inform it about the filing of the final report seeking closure of the case.
