Singh Bogarh Vs. State of Punjab  Insc
84 (10 February 2004)
Hegde & B.P.Singh.
out of SLP(Crl.)No.1907 of 2003). SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
learned counsel for the parties.
on a letter of request issued by the Government of Canada addressed to the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Superintendent of Police,
CBI, Chandigarh filed an application before the
Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala purporting to be under Section 166B
of the Cr.P.C.
Code) seeking directions to the appellant to make a statement and give blood
samples for sending the same to the Canadian Authorities as desired by them in
their letter of request.
said Magistrate by his order dated 21st of October, 2000 rejecting the
objection of the appellant allowed the said application of the CBI. Being
aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the appellant moved the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Patiala by way of a revision which came to be dismissed by an
order dated 15th of March, 2001 and a Crl. Misc. Petition filed under Section
482 of the Code before the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
also came to be dismissed, hence the appellant is before us in this appeal.
stated the case of the CBI before the trial court was that the appellant was a
suspect in the murder of one Smt. Saminder Kaur Bogarh who was murdered on
31.10.1986 in Vernon, British Columbia, Canada. During the course of
investigation, the investigating agency found some blood which the said
investigating agency believed was that of the appellant herein. Hence, for
verifying the same, the Government of Canada, as stated above, sent a letter to
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India requesting the said Ministry through its agencies to interview the
appellant and obtain on voluntary basis a statement of his and a sample of his
blood for DNA analysis in a manner acceptable to the Canadian Court. As stated above, it was for the
said purpose, the CBI moved the court in Punjab for necessary directions to the appellant which application of the CBI
came to be allowed, as stated above.
K Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal
contended that the request of the Canadian Government made to the Home
Ministry, Govt. of India was to obtain the appellant's statement as also his
blood sample on a voluntary basis and the same was not a request for obtaining
the said statement and blood-sample of the appellant under compulsion or under
the authority of any Indian law which would permit the recording of statement
and obtaining of blood samples under compulsion. He pointed out that under the
Canadian Law, as it stood then, statements obtained under compulsion and blood
samples obtained similarly will be of no use to the prosecution.
argument of the learned counsel is based on the fact that on an earlier
occasion the Canadian Police Authorities had obtained such statement and blood
sample under compulsion from the appellant which was rejected by the Canadian
prosecuting agency who had opined that such compulsory collection of blood
samples or recording of statement was impermissible under their law. Learned
counsel further submitted it is because of that the Canadian Authorities under
the present letter of request advisedly requested the Government of India to
obtain the statement and blood samples of the appellant on a voluntary basis.
It was further submitted that the appellant is not willing to give a voluntary
statement nor is he willing to give voluntarily the sample of his blood as
desired by the Canadian Authorities. The further contention of the learned
counsel was that the courts below have failed to notice the true contents of
the letter of request from the Canadian Government and wrongly invoking the
provisions of Section 166B of the Code have compelled the appellant to make a
statement as also give the sample of his blood.
Addl. Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent-CBI, in our
opinion, has fairly submitted that in view of the specific request of the
Canadian Authorities to record the statement as well as collect the blood
samples of the appellant voluntarily, it would be futile to get the same
through an order of the court which would amount to compelling the appellant to
make a statement and give his blood sample under compulsion which, according to
said learned counsel, was not the request of the Canadian Authorities. Hence,
on this aspect of the case he was at ad idem with learned counsel for the
appellant. However, in regard to the interpretation of Section 166B of the
Code, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments addressed by
learned counsel for the appellant.
perused the letter of request of the Canadian Authorities, we are in agreement
with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the said request
makes it specific that the statement as well as the blood sample of the
appellant should be obtained voluntarily which would indicate that if the appellant
is not willing to make any statement or give his blood samples, the CBI cannot
take recourse to Section 166B of the Code because that is not the request of
the Canadian Authorities.
we are of the opinion that the respondent in this case has exceeded his brief
by invoking the provisions under Section 166B of the Code to record the
statement as well as to collect the blood-sample of the appellant. The courts
below have failed to notice this aspect of the case and proceeded to apply the
provisions of Section 166B of the Code erroneously. Therefore, in our view, the
impugned orders of the courts below are unsustainable in law.
concluding, we must record that both the counsel appearing for the parties have
joined issue as to the correct interpretation of Section 166B of the Code but
we do not think it necessary for us to decide that issue in this case since we
have decided the case on facts i.e. on the basis of the contents of the letter
of request issued by the Canadian Government.
reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned orders of the courts
below are set aside.
appeal is allowed.