HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition (C) No. 6385/2014
In Reference (Suo Motu)
Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Advocate General and Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.
8 JULY 2015
Learned Advocate General has invited our attention to I.A. No.6889/2015 filed by the State praying for transferring of investigation of criminal cases relating to VYAPAM scam to the Central Bureau of Investigation and also the cases related to deaths of persons that are allegedly linked to VYAPAM scam cases.
We are informed that identical prayer has been made in the proceedings recently instituted before the Supreme Court. Therefore, in deference and to observe judicial propriety, we are of the considered opinion that the hearing on this application must wait till the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, we defer the hearing of this application till 20th July, 2015, for the time being.
For the same reason, we are not expressing any opinion on the contents of the sealed envelope produced before us by the Head of S.T.F., in furtherance of order dated 26th June, 2015. Even that aspect can be considered on the next date.
The sealed envelope be preserved in the same condition. The preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Head of S.T.F. in relation to the same incident, which was tendered on the last date of hearing be also kept in sealed cover. The sealed cover shall be retained by the Registrar General until further orders of this Court.
Even the I.A. No.5988/2015 filed by the S.T.F. deserves to be deferred as the entire issue (of transferring the investigation to C.B.I. and the investigation to be done under the monitoring of the Supreme Court) is pending before the Supreme Court in the recently filed proceedings, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.417/2015. However, we place on record the sincere effort made by the learned Advocate General and the amicus curiae to prepare notes on the questions of law that may arise for consideration and more particularly the workable arrangement that can be evolved to ensure that safety, security and admissibility of the Pen Drive is not impaired, in any manner. However, we shall deal with those aspects at the appropriate stage.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) Chief Justice
(Alok Aradhe) Judge