| Package | Description |
|---|---|
| com.teamdev.jxbrowser.chromium |
Contains the basic classes and interfaces.
|
| com.teamdev.jxbrowser.chromium.dom |
Contains interfaces and classes that allow working with DOM.
|
| com.teamdev.jxbrowser.chromium.events |
Contains interfaces and classes for dealing with different
types of events fired by
Browser component. |
| com.teamdev.jxbrowser.chromium.javafx |
Contains the classes and interfaces for embedding Browser instance into JavaFX application.
|
| com.teamdev.jxbrowser.chromium.swing |
Contains the classes and interfaces for embedding Browser instance into Swing application.
|
| Class and Description |
|---|
| AuthRequiredParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onAuthRequired(AuthRequiredParams) method. |
| AutoDetectProxyConfig
With this proxy configuration the connection automatically
detects proxy settings.
|
| BeforeRedirectParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeRedirect(BeforeRedirectParams) method. |
| BeforeSendHeadersParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeSendHeaders(BeforeSendHeadersParams) method. |
| BeforeSendProxyHeadersParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeSendProxyHeaders(BeforeSendProxyHeadersParams) method. |
| BeforeURLRequestParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeURLRequest(BeforeURLRequestParams) method. |
| Browser
Represents web browser control based on Chromium engine.
|
| BrowserContext
Describes context of a
Browser instance. |
| BrowserContextParams
Represents parameters required for
BrowserContext instance. |
| BrowserKeyEvent
Represents a key event that can be forwarded to Chromium engine
using the
Browser.forwardKeyEvent(BrowserKeyEvent) method. |
| BrowserKeyEvent.KeyCode
Contains all the key codes which can be forwarded to Chromium engine.
|
| BrowserKeyEvent.KeyEventType
Represents key event type.
|
| BrowserKeyEvent.KeyModifiers
Represents key modifiers that can be passed to
BrowserKeyEvent instance. |
| BrowserKeyEvent.KeyModifiersBuilder
A builder that allows you to construct a
BrowserKeyEvent.KeyModifiers instance. |
| BrowserMouseEvent
Represents a mouse event that can be forwarded to Chromium engine
using the
Browser.forwardMouseEvent(BrowserMouseEvent) method. |
| BrowserMouseEvent.BrowserMouseEventBuilder |
| BrowserMouseEvent.MouseButtonType
Represents mouse button type
|
| BrowserMouseEvent.MouseEventType
Represents mouse event type
|
| BrowserMouseEvent.MouseScrollType
Represents mouse scroll type
|
| BrowserPreferences
Browser instance and global library preferences.
|
| BrowserType
Provides set of supported browser types.
|
| BytesData
Contains upload parameters represented as plain bytes.
|
| CacheStorage
The system for cache handling.
|
| Callback |
| Certificate
Provides information about X509 certificate.
|
| CertificateErrorParams
Contains information about SSL certificate error.
|
| CertificatesDialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onSelectCertificate(CertificatesDialogParams) method. |
| CertificateVerifier
Represents a service for verifying SSL certificates.
|
| CertificateVerifyFlag
Enum of flags that indicate result of SSL certificate verification
by default Chromium certificate verifier.
|
| CertificateVerifyParams
Provides information about SSL certificate, host name, and Chromium verify results.
|
| CertificateVerifyResult
Represents possible certificate verification results.
|
| CloseStatus
The dialog close status indicates the way (OK or Cancel button) the dialog was closed.
|
| ColorChooserParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onColorChooser(ColorChooserParams) method. |
| ColorModel
Print color mode values.
|
| ContextMenu
Provides access to context menu items and allows notifying
Chromium engine about context menu state.
|
| ContextMenuHandler
Interface for handling browser context menu requests.
|
| ContextMenuItem
Provides info about context menu item.
|
| ContextMenuItemType |
| ContextMenuParams
Contains information about context menu.
|
| Cookie
Represents an HTTP cookie.
|
| CookieStorage
The system for storing and retrieving cookies.
|
| CustomProxyConfig
Describes a user's proxy settings.
|
| DataReceivedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onDataReceived(DataReceivedParams) method. |
| DialogHandler
Allows handling browser dialogs such as JavaScript alert, confirmation and prompt.
|
| DialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onAlert(DialogParams) and
DialogHandler.onConfirmation(DialogParams) methods. |
| DirectProxyConfig
With this proxy configuration the connection doesn't use a proxy server.
|
| DownloadHandler
Allows handling file downloads.
|
| DownloadItem
Provides different information such as file URL, its mime type,
percent complete, received bytes etc.
|
| DuplexMode
Print duplex mode values.
|
| EditorCommand
The list of commands for text manipulation when editing in a text field, text area or WYSIWYG editor.
|
| ExtendedKeyUsage
Represents extended key usage values.
|
| FileChooserMode
List of modes of the browser file chooser dialog.
|
| FileChooserParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onFileChooser(FileChooserParams) method. |
| FormData
Represents POST data parameters if the Content-Type is
application/x-www-form-urlencoded . |
| FullScreenHandler
The listener interface for receiving full-screen state change events.
|
| HeadersReceivedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onHeadersReceived(HeadersReceivedParams) method. |
| HostPortPair
Represents combination of host and port.
|
| HttpHeaders
Represents HTTP request and response headers, mapping string header names to list of header values.
|
| HttpHeadersEx
Represents HTTP request/response headers.
|
| HttpStatus
Represents allowed HTTP response status values.
|
| JSArray
Represents JavaScript Array object.
|
| JSBoolean
Represents JavaScript primitive boolean value.
|
| JSBooleanObject
Represents JavaScript Boolean object.
|
| JSContext
Represents JavaScript execution context.
|
| JSFunction
Represents a JavaScript function.
|
| JSNumber
Represents JavaScript primitive number value.
|
| JSNumberObject
Represents JavaScript Number object.
|
| JSObject
Represents a JavaScript object.
|
| JSPrimitive
An abstract class for JavaScript primitive types.
|
| JSString
Represents JavaScript primitive string value.
|
| JSStringObject
Represents JavaScript String object.
|
| JSValue
Class for all JavaScript values.
|
| KeyUsage
Represents key usage values.
|
| LoadDataParams
Parameters that are used in the
Browser.loadData(long, LoadDataParams) method. |
| LoadHandler
Allows handling any load activity including filtering all URLs loaded in Browser component.
|
| LoadHTMLParams
Parameters that are used in the
Browser.loadHTML(LoadHTMLParams) method. |
| LoadParams
Contains information about load event.
|
| LoadParams.LoadPolicy |
| LoadParams.LoadType |
| LoadURLParams
Parameters that are used in the
Browser.loadURL(LoadURLParams) method. |
| LoggerProvider
Provides access to different JxBrowser Loggers which are used to log Browser,
IPC and Chromium process messages.
|
| MediaStreamDevice
Represents a media stream device.
|
| MediaStreamDeviceManager
The system for managing media stream devices.
|
| MediaStreamDeviceProvider
Provides default media stream device that Chromium should use
for capturing audio/video input on loaded web page.
|
| MediaStreamDeviceRequest
Represents a request for media streams (audio/video).
|
| MediaStreamType
Represents types of media streams.
|
| MediaType
List of known media types.
|
| MultipartFormData
Represents POST data parameters if the Content-Type is
multipart/form-data . |
| NavigationEntry
Provides information about the navigation entry that is used to navigate through the
Browser navigation history.
|
| NavigationEntry.PageType
The type of the page a
NavigationEntry corresponds to. |
| NetworkDelegate
Interface for handling URL requests and responses.
|
| NetworkService
Provides access to a network level functionality.
|
| NotificationHandler
The handler interface for receiving browser HTML5 desktop common notification events.
|
| NotificationService
Provides access to HTML5 desktop notifications functionality.
|
| NotificationType
Represents enumeration with HTML5 desktop notification types.
|
| PACScriptErrorParams
Provides details about PAC script error.
|
| PageMargins
Margins in printer device points for a page setup.
|
| PageRange
Page range for printing.
|
| PaperSize
Describes paper format name, and paper width and height in microns.
|
| PermissionHandler
Allows handling permission requests from web pages such as
geolocation, desktop notification permission requests, etc.
|
| PermissionRequest
Provides details on the permission request.
|
| PermissionStatus
Represents enum with permission statuses.
|
| PermissionType
Represents enum with permission types.
|
| PluginFilter
A plugin filter that is used by Chromium engine to find out what plugin is allowed during
web page loading.
|
| PluginInfo
Contains information about Chromium plugin.
|
| PluginManager
The system for plugins management.
|
| PluginType
Enumeration for identifying the type of plugin
|
| PopupContainer
Each container that can be used for newly created browser must implement this interface.
|
| PopupHandler
Implementers of
PopupHandler may manage newly created popup windows
that were opened using the window.open JavaScript function. |
| PopupParams
The information that can be used before creating a new browser window.
|
| Principal
Represents the notion of a X509 principal, which used to represent
subject or issuer entities.
|
| PrintHandler
Allows handling printing initiated by
Browser.print() method or
window.print() JavaScript on the web page. |
| PrintJob
Indicates a print job.
|
| PrintSettings
Provides access to different printing settings.
|
| PrintStatus
The print status indicates whether printing must be canceled or not.
|
| PromptDialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onPrompt(PromptDialogParams) method. |
| ProtocolHandler
Interface for handing URL requests and responses.
|
| ProtocolService
Provides access to functionality that allows registering non-standard
protocol handlers and overriding standard protocols.
|
| ProxyConfig
An abstract class that must be implemented by all possible proxy configurations.
|
| ProxyType
Represents type of a proxy connection.
|
| RawData |
| ReloadPostDataParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onReloadPostData(ReloadPostDataParams) method. |
| RenderProcessInfo
Contains information about current render process associated with the Browser instance.
|
| RequestCompletedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onCompleted(RequestCompletedParams) method. |
| RequestParams
Parent class for all
NetworkDelegate method params. |
| RequestStatus
Possible statuses of a HTTP request.
|
| ResourceHandler
Allows handling process of loading resources such as HTML, images, JavaScript, CSS files, etc.
|
| ResourceParams
Represents information about resource.
|
| ResourceType |
| ResponseStartedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onResponseStarted(ResponseStartedParams) method. |
| SavePageType
Determines how the web page will be saved via the
Browser.saveWebPage(String, String, SavePageType) method. |
| SearchParams
Represents search request parameters, that are used for searching text on a web page.
|
| SearchResult
Provides information about the number of matches of a specified text on a web page.
|
| SendHeadersParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onSendHeaders(SendHeadersParams) method. |
| SpellCheckCompletedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
SpellCheckListener.onSpellCheckCompleted(SpellCheckCompletedParams) method. |
| SpellCheckerService
Provides access to spellchecker service.
|
| SpellCheckListener
The interface for receiving spell check events.
|
| SpellCheckResult
Contains information about specific mistake in the examined text.
|
| StatusLine
Represents a normalized status line of HTTP response.
|
| StopFindAction
Provides actions for
Browser.stopFindingText(StopFindAction) method. |
| StorageType
Represents Chromium data storage type.
|
| SubjectAlternativeName
Represents the alternative subject name entity.
|
| SubjectAlternativeName.Type
Alternative name types.
|
| TerminationStatus
List of possible render process termination statuses.
|
| TextData
Contains POST parameters which cannot be represented as
FormData
or MultipartFormData but can be represented as plain text. |
| UnloadDialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onBeforeUnload(UnloadDialogParams) method. |
| UploadData
General interface that describes upload data in HTTP request.
|
| UploadDataType
List of supported upload data types.
|
| URLProxyConfig
With this proxy configuration the connection uses proxy settings
received from proxy auto-config (PAC) file which is located at
the specific address.
|
| URLRequest
Represents URL request that is passed to the
ProtocolHandler.onRequest(URLRequest) method. |
| URLResponse
Represents URL response for the
ProtocolHandler.onRequest(URLRequest)
method that allows providing custom response. |
| WebRTCIPHandlingPolicy
List of supported policies for WebRTC IP handling.
|
| WebStorage
The WebStorage interface of the Web Storage API provides access to the session storage or
local storage for a particular document on the loaded web page, allowing you to for example
add, modify or delete stored data items.
|
| XPathIterator
Represents the iterator over the XPath result node set.
|
| XPathIteratorItem |
| XPathResultType
Represents the type of an XPath evaluation result.
|
| ZoomService
Provides access to zoom configuration.
|
| Class and Description |
|---|
| XPathResult
Represents the result of evaluating the XPath expression.
|
| XPathResultType
Represents the type of an XPath evaluation result.
|
| Class and Description |
|---|
| Browser
Represents web browser control based on Chromium engine.
|
| DownloadItem
Provides different information such as file URL, its mime type,
percent complete, received bytes etc.
|
| JSContext
Represents JavaScript execution context.
|
| Notification
Represents object that contains information about browser notification, stores notification state data and provides
functionality that allows user to perform operations with notification (click, closeInternal, etc.) and listen browser events
associated with this notification instance.
|
| TerminationStatus
List of possible render process termination statuses.
|
| Class and Description |
|---|
| AuthRequiredParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onAuthRequired(AuthRequiredParams) method. |
| BeforeRedirectParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeRedirect(BeforeRedirectParams) method. |
| BeforeSendHeadersParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeSendHeaders(BeforeSendHeadersParams) method. |
| BeforeSendProxyHeadersParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeSendProxyHeaders(BeforeSendProxyHeadersParams) method. |
| BeforeURLRequestParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onBeforeURLRequest(BeforeURLRequestParams) method. |
| Browser
Represents web browser control based on Chromium engine.
|
| CertificatesDialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onSelectCertificate(CertificatesDialogParams) method. |
| CloseStatus
The dialog close status indicates the way (OK or Cancel button) the dialog was closed.
|
| ColorChooserParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onColorChooser(ColorChooserParams) method. |
| ContextMenuHandler
Interface for handling browser context menu requests.
|
| ContextMenuParams
Contains information about context menu.
|
| Cookie
Represents an HTTP cookie.
|
| DataReceivedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onDataReceived(DataReceivedParams) method. |
| DialogHandler
Allows handling browser dialogs such as JavaScript alert, confirmation and prompt.
|
| DialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onAlert(DialogParams) and
DialogHandler.onConfirmation(DialogParams) methods. |
| DownloadHandler
Allows handling file downloads.
|
| DownloadItem
Provides different information such as file URL, its mime type,
percent complete, received bytes etc.
|
| FileChooserParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onFileChooser(FileChooserParams) method. |
| HeadersReceivedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onHeadersReceived(HeadersReceivedParams) method. |
| InputEventsHandler
An input events filter that can be set to the
BrowserView to filter
different input events such as mouse, scroll, keyboard, etc. |
| NetworkDelegate
Interface for handling URL requests and responses.
|
| PACScriptErrorParams
Provides details about PAC script error.
|
| PopupContainer
Each container that can be used for newly created browser must implement this interface.
|
| PopupHandler
Implementers of
PopupHandler may manage newly created popup windows
that were opened using the window.open JavaScript function. |
| PopupParams
The information that can be used before creating a new browser window.
|
| PrintHandler
Allows handling printing initiated by
Browser.print() method or
window.print() JavaScript on the web page. |
| PrintJob
Indicates a print job.
|
| PrintStatus
The print status indicates whether printing must be canceled or not.
|
| PromptDialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onPrompt(PromptDialogParams) method. |
| ReloadPostDataParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onReloadPostData(ReloadPostDataParams) method. |
| RequestCompletedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onCompleted(RequestCompletedParams) method. |
| RequestParams
Parent class for all
NetworkDelegate method params. |
| ResponseStartedParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onResponseStarted(ResponseStartedParams) method. |
| SendHeadersParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
NetworkDelegate.onSendHeaders(SendHeadersParams) method. |
| UnloadDialogParams
Represents parameters that are passed to the
DialogHandler.onBeforeUnload(UnloadDialogParams) method. |
| Class and Description |
|---|
| BrowserKeyEvent.KeyEventType
Represents key event type.
|


To clear in you MUST currently go to the commercial dock at Oranjestad NOT Barcadera Harbour. This is “Yellow marked” area (H Pier). It is next to the Renaissance marina.
On approach, call “Aruba Port Control” on VHF channel 16 (or 11). The port Captain will switch to channel 11 or 14. Then request permission to enter the harbour to clear Customs and Immigration. Everyone must remain on board until clearance is completed. The officials will come to the boat.
See the comments from cruisers at the bottom of the page on the difficulties with mooring at the Oranjestad commercial dock. Also see the Oranjestad page for tips and best advice. The good news is that Aruba Port Control have listened to cruisers' complaints and have promised to improve the berthing arrangement here for visiting yachts undertaking clearance.
Fly the 'Q' flag once in Aruban waters until clearance is completed.
The correct courtesy flag is that of the Netherlands, but a request can be made for an Aruban flag. On departure, be sure to obtain clearance out of Aruba.
If visiting during the cruise ship season (October - April) planning clearance, either in or out, in the afternoon is likely to result in a short waiting time for the officials to visit.
In the main, cruisers report that of all the Dutch Antilles on the south side of the Caribbean, Aruba is the least yacht friendly of them all.
Last updated November 2015.
Passports are required for all visitors.
The Immigration form for yacht crews can be downloaded at www.arubaports.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/immigration-form.pdfVisa requirements:
Even though Aruba is now an autonomous country of the Kingdon of the Netherlands, its own visas rules apply.
Citizens of the USA, Canada, U.K. , Ireland and a Schengen Area country do not require a visa. .
Other nationalities should download entry requirements from http://www.aruba.com/sigma/Entry_Req-Eng.pdf.
The initial period of time that a person can be admitted to Aruba as a tourist is 30 days, however, a longer period can be requested on entry. The total amount of days a person can stay in Aruba, as a tourist cannot exceed 180 days per year. For a list of nationalities who can extend their 30 day stay for up to 180 days, go to the above link.
If you plan to stay longer than 30 days, ask for an extension on entry.
Last updated October 2015.
The Customs form can be downloads at www.arubaports.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Custom_clearance_English.pdf
If a yacht stays for less than 180 days, a Temporary Import Permit (TIP) is required. In this case, no deposit is required.
Any time a yacht is stored in an official Customs Storage facility (i.e. the one at Varadero Caribe) is not included in the 180 days.
Note that as this rule is new, not all Customs officials are familiar with it.
If a yacht stays longer than 180 days, a Temporary Import Permit will need to be obtained together with payment of a deposit (or a bank guarantee) for the value of the duties for the yacht.
At the expiration of the TIP the yacht will have to leave the island for at least 15 days before a new temporary permit can be applied for.
If the yacht stays longer than a year the yacht will have to be imported.
Yachts brought into Aruba with the intention of sale will have to pay duties upon arrival.
Varadero Caribe now has Customs Storage status where the time a yacht is left on the hard is not included in the 180 day restriction.
Other Customs Rules
Firearms must be declared.
Oranjestad is a tax-free port and currently no customs restrictions apply on imports.
Last updated October 2015.
ZIKA VIRUS ALERT: There have been recent safety alerts from the US State Department, UK Foreign Office, and Center for Disease Control (CDC) regarding travel to parts of Central and South America, Africa, southern Asia, the Caribbean, and the South Pacific islands. Aruba is an area of interest with multiple reported cases and active virus transmission. There is growing concern about the rapid spread of the ZIKA Virus and the impact of the virus on pregnant women and babies. ZIKA is transmitted by mosquitos in tropical and sub-tropical climates, and there is currently no cure or vaccine. This situation is evolving rapidly, so please refer to the CDC’s dedicated website if you are intending to cruise in one of the effected areas.
Last updated September 2016.
There are no Customs & Immigration fees.
For a agent to arrange the Temporary Import Permit, the cost is approx. US$ 65.00 to US$ 100.00, or about $25 if you just use an agent to draw up the paperwork before visiting the offices yourself.
Harbour fees may no longer charged (Noonsite is checking this.)
Last updated January 2015.
Details on Pet Regulations can be found here http://www.aruba.com/sigma/airport/pet_import_requirements.pdf.
Dogs and cats are only allowed entry with valid rabies and health certificates and to have resided in USA or other country with low incidence of rabies for 6 months immediately prior to travel to Aruba.
Pets from Southern and Central America, Cuba, Haiti or the Dominican Republic via USA are not permitted to land in Aruba.
Last updated March 2016.


H:
W:
Type:
Model:
Lvl:
Case:
Turk, Kevin
Laurie, Noah
Spence, Neil
Cox, Elliot
West, Sean
Flynn, Omar
Pratt, Jesse
--
Kovac, Mario
Reid, Linda
Reid, Linda
Chalke, Elisa
Reyes, Jack
Chase, Amy
McGinley, Chi
Unknown
Reuben
Faison, Joe
Perry, Zach
Epps, Thomas
Barnett, Ray
Grey, Donald
Kasal, Greg
Anderson, R.
Research
Anderson, R.
Research
Anderson, R.
GUILT victim
Vogler, Hugh
Carter, Shane
Wylie, George
Dorian, Eric
Myers, Cybil
Milan, Ludwig
Perry, Jacob
Blackwell, K.
1st Sinner
2nd Sinner
3rd Sinner
4th Sinner
5th Sinner
6th Sinner
Last Sinner
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
172.3 cm
179.9 cm
161.3 cm
185.2 cm
181.1 cm
132.6 cm
165.0 cm
--
155.2 cm
150.4 cm
150.4 cm
138.7 cm
163.3 cm
119.9 cm
183.4 cm
112.5 cm
172.1 cm
169.5 cm
160.6 cm
158.3 cm
171.9 cm
169.9 cm
158.5 cm
B
158.5 cm
A
158.5 cm
--
165.4 cm
176.7 cm
180.3 cm
166.6 cm
166.4 cm
174.5 cm
168.5 cm
180.5 cm
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
155.4 lbs
141.7 lbs
183.4 lbs
210.1 lbs
163.4 lbs
74.9 lbs
132.7 lbs
--
143.0 lbs
95.2 lbs
95.2 lbs
84.4 lbs
152.8 lbs
60.4 lbs
160.2 lbs
Time Bomb
74.0 lbs
150.3 lbs
141.1 lbs
128.7 lbs
132.5 lbs
155.0 lbs
145.3 lbs
213.3 lbs
Q. 1
197.4 lbs
Q. 2
189.1 lbs
--
148.8 lbs
155.0 lbs
163.3 lbs
155.0 lbs
106.0 lbs
160.0 lbs
144.4 lbs
157.4 lbs
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Lacerations and
foreign objects
in upper right
brachium.
Requires removal
of the foreign
objects, and
suturing.
Tumor confirmed at
the surface of the
stomach. It should
be removed before
it becomes
malignant.
Multiple tumors
confirmed in the
pancreas. They may
lead to a loss
of stamina, so
immediate removal
is necessary.
Polyp clusters
confirmed in the
trachea. Due to
internal
hemorrhaging,
a laser hemostatis
procedure is
required.
Multiple tumors
confirmed in the
small intestine,
resulting in
several other
inflammations.
Patient suffered
cardiac arrest as
the result of a
car accident.
Multiple
lacerations of the
epithelium and
problems in the
abdomen.
Multiple thrombi
due to waste
blockage.
Immediate removal
is required.
Personal training
exercise.
Gain focus and
practice
superhuman
concentration.
Multiple aneurisms
have formed on the
surface of the
large intestine.
Requires sedative
treatment and
suturing of the
vessel.
Several bleeding
lacerations found
in the right lung.
Patient's vitals
are unstable and
require extreme
caution.
Hemorrhaging
lacerations have
re-formed in
the right lung.
Please conduct
an investigation
while performing
hemostatic
treatment.
Mitral prolapse
and regurgitation.
Since complications
may arise, it is
necessary to
replace the valve
with a synthetic
valve.
Positive Chiral
reaction--Kyriaki
bodies detected.
Immediate removal
is required to
prevent further
complications.
Chiral reaction
positive--Deftera
bodies detected.
Complete removal
from the stomach
and lungs is
required.
It's a bomb.
Blindly cutting
at it would be
extremely...bad.
Edema of the lungs
has worsened,
causing respiratory
failure. Fluid
must be drained
from the lungs to
secure respiratory
tract.
Chiral reaction
positive--unknown
infection detected.
Extreme care is
necessary during
treatment.
Chiral reaction
positive--Tetarti
bodies detected.
Extract GUILT
to procure
antibody samples.
Chiral reaction
positive--Tetarti
bodies detected.
Extract GUILT
to procure
antibody samples.
Chiral reaction
positive--Tetarti
bodies detected.
Extract GUILT
to procure
antibody samples.
Chiral reaction
positive--Tetarti
bodies detected.
Extract GUILT
to procure
antibody samples.
Chiral reaction
positive--Tetarti
bodies detected.
Extract GUILT
to procure
antibody samples.
Tetarti bodies
confirmed in the
liver. Inject the
newly designed
serum to eliminate
them.
Chiral reaction
positive--Pempti
bodies detected.
Perform lobectomy
and examine
the strain for
further study.
Help create a new
nanomachine by
figuring out a
simple puzzle.
How hard could
it be?
Chiral reaction
positive--Pempti
bodies detected.
Lung functions
have decreased
due to GUILT
invasion.
New treatment is
scheduled for use.
Help create a new
device by figuring
out another
simple puzzle.
No sweat, right?
Chiral reaction
positive--Pempti
bodies detected.
Lung condition
has dropped to
critical. Prototype
laser treatment
is the only option.
Chiral reaction
positive--Kyriaki
bodies detected.
Multiple patients
are in need of
immediate
attention.
Chiral reaction
positive--Triti
bodies detected.
Airborne properties
create a high risk
for infection.
Chiral reaction
positive--Triti
bodies detected.
Airborne properties
create a high risk
for infection.
Chiral reaction
positive--Triti
bodies detected.
Airborne properties
create a high risk
for infection.
Chiral reaction
positive--Tetarti
bodies detected.
This mutation
is resistant to
serum and much
stronger than
before.
Chiral reaction
positive--
Paraskevi bodies
detected.
Must be removed
before reaching
the heart.
Chiral reaction
positive--unknown
infection detected.
Extreme care is
necessary during
treatment.
Chiral reaction
positive--unknown
infection detected.
Extreme care is
necessary during
treatment.
Chiral reaction
positive--unknown
infection detected.
Pulse has dropped,
so cardiac
complications are
extremely likely.
Kyriaki archetype.
Use extreme care,
as this is GUILT
in its most
concentrated
state.
Deftera archetype.
Use extreme care,
as this is GUILT
in its most
concentrated
state.
Triti archetype.
Use extreme care,
as this is GUILT
in its most
concentrated
state.
Tetarti archetype.
Use extreme care,
as this is GUILT
in its most
concentrated
state.
Pempti archetype.
Use extreme care,
as this is GUILT
in its most
concentrated
state.
Paraskevi
archetype. Use
extreme care, as
this is GUILT in
its most
concentrated
state.
Savato archetype.
Use extreme care,
as this is GUILT
in its most
concentrated
state.
Dr. Stiles's
unreleased report
number 1:
Invisible blades
"Kyriaki"
Dr. Stiles's
unreleased report
number 2:
Creeping tumors
"Deftera"
Dr. Stiles's
unreleased report
number 3:
Contagious
nightmare
"Triti"
Dr. Stiles's
unreleased report
number 4:
Synchronized
poison
"Tetarti"
Dr. Stiles's
unreleased report
number 5:
Armored bacteria
"Pempti"
Dr. Stiles's
unreleased report
number 6:
Arrow to the heart
"Paraskevi"


{* Copyright 2011-2013 Here's A Hand Limited Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. *} {extends file="page.htm"} {block name="navButtons"} Setup a holiday now Update your schedule {/block} {block name="content"}
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
{$date}
{foreach $holidays[$date] as $holiday}
{if $holiday->getUserAccountId() == $currentUser->getId()}
You are on holiday.
{else}
{$holiday->getDisplayName()|escape} is on holiday.
{/if}
{/foreach}
{foreach $requestsToday as $request}
{/foreach}
|
{if $requestsToday@index % 7 == 6}


| Date | Book | Host |
|---|---|---|
| Friday, May 5th 6pm | Gold Fame Citrus | Emily |
| Friday, July 7th 7pm | The Late Homecomer's | Sara |
| Friday, September 1st 7pm | Book Undecided | Jenn |
| Friday, November 3rd 7pm | Book Undecided | Kylie |
| Friday, January 5th 7pm | Book Undecided | Bridget |
| Friday, March 6th 7pm | Book Undecided | Erin |
| Friday, May 4th 7pm | Book Undecided | Emily |


Applications to test the capabilities of the Meteomatics Weather API (here).
Will only work on internal network.


Overtime: {{toHours( salarySlip.attendance.work_stats.overtime ,'m')}}
Employee has been not been on any duty.
Employee Name: {{employee?.first_name}} {{employee?.last_name}}
Designation: {{employee?.designation}}
Date:
{{payroll?.start_date | date: 'mediumDate'}} - {{payroll?.end_date | date: 'mediumDate'}}
| Shift |
Total Days |
Working Days |
Present |
Leaves |
Holidays |
| {{a.name}} |
{{a.total_days}} |
{{(a.total_days - a.holidays)}} |
{{a.present}} |
{{a.absent}} |
{{a.holidays}} |
| Net Salary |
{{getTotalSalary('0')- getTotalSalary('1')}}
|


|
| static byte [] | ToBytes (string hexString) |
| | Creates a byte array from the hexadecimal string. Each two characters are combined to create one byte. First two hexadecimal characters become first byte in returned array. Non-hexadecimal characters are ignored. More...
|
| |
| static byte [] | GenSelectMask (string hexString) |
| | Creates a byte array from the hexadecimal string. Each two characters are combined to create one byte. First two hexadecimal characters become first byte in returned array. Non-hexadecimal characters are ignored. More...
|
| |
| static byte [] | GenPostMatchMask (string hexString) |
| | Creates a byte array from the hexadecimal string. Each two characters are combined to create one byte. First two hexadecimal characters become first byte in returned array. Non-hexadecimal characters are ignored. More...
|
| |
| static byte [] | ToBytes (ushort[] data) |
| | Convent ushort array to byte array More...
|
| |
| static byte [] | ToBytes (ushort[] data, int count) |
| | Convent ushort array to byte array More...
|
| |
| static byte | ToByte (string hexString) |
| | return a byte from string More...
|
| |
| static ushort | ToUshort (string str) |
| | return ushort from byte string More...
|
| |
| static ushort [] | ToUshorts (byte[] Input) |
| | return ushort array from byte array More...
|
| |
| static short [] | ToShorts (byte[] Input) |
| | return short array from byte array More...
|
| |
| static ushort [] | ToUshorts (string Input) |
| | return ushort array from string input More...
|
| |
| static string | ToString (byte[] bytes) |
| | Byte to String Conversion More...
|
| |
| static string | ToString (byte[] bytes, int length) |
| | Byte to String Conversion More...
|
| |
| static string | ToString (byte[] bytes, uint offset, uint count) |
| | Byte to String Conversion More...
|
| |
| static string | ToString (ushort[] data) |
| | ushort to String Conversion More...
|
| |
| static string | ToString (ushort[] data, uint offset, uint count) |
| | ushort to String Conversion More...
|
| |
| static bool | IsHexFormat (string hexString) |
| | Determines if given string is in proper hexadecimal string format More...
|
| |
| static bool | Compare (string source, string target) |
| | Compare Hex String, ie, source = "11ffaa", target = "11FFaa", it will return true More...
|
| |
| static bool | Compare (Byte[] source, Byte[] target) |
| | Compare Hex More...
|
| |
| static bool | Compare (Byte[] source, Byte[] target, int size) |
| | Compare Hex More...
|
| |
| static Int16 | ToInt16 (byte[] buffer, int offset) |
| | Convert 2 Bytes to one short More...
|
| |
| static UInt16 | ToUInt16 (byte[] buffer, int offset) |
| | Convert 2 Bytes to one short More...
|
| |
| static UInt32 | ToUInt32 (byte[] buffer, int offset) |
| | Convert 4 Bytes to one uint32 More...
|
| |
| static UInt32 | ToUInt32 (string hexString) |
| | Convert string to one uint32 More...
|
| |
| static UInt64 | ToUInt64 (byte[] buffer, int offset) |
| | Convert 4 bytes to long More...
|
| |
| static void | Copy ([In] Byte[] src, [In, Out] Byte[] dst, [In] int count) |
| | Copy One array to another array More...
|
| |
| static void | Copy ([In] Byte[] src, [In, Out] Byte[] dst, [In] int dstIndex, [In] int count) |
| | Copy One array to another array More...
|
| |
| static void | Copy ([In] Byte[] src, [In] int srcIndex, [In, Out] Byte[] dst, [In] int dstIndex, [In] int count) |
| | Copy One array to another array More...
|
| |
| static bool | Compare< T > (T[] a, T[] b) |
| | Generic compare two array More...
|
| |
| static UInt32 | GetBitCount (string hexString) |
| | Get bit length from string More...
|
| |
| static UInt32 | GetBitCount (Byte[] bytes) |
| | Get bit length from string More...
|
| |
| static ushort | GetWordCount (string hexString) |
| | Get Word length from string More...
|
| |
| static int | GetByteCount (string hexString) |
| | GetByteCount More...
|
| |
Summary description for HexEncoding.


EAPIAC Innovation Alliance is a technology innovation alliance with information science, software and hardware implementation and application.
Cooperation:


Block Selection - Visual Studio 2019 for Mac This article explains how to use the block selection feature in Visual Studio for Mac
Australian Kids' Smartwatch Maker Hit By Same Bug Again An Australian company that sells a GPS tracking smartwatch for kids accidently exposed personal data a second time. But this time around, it has not notified users
Troy Hunt Troy Hunt is a Microsoft MVP for Developer Security, ASPInsider, and Author for Pluralsight„a leader in online training for technology and creative professional
Reassuring Words and Good Intentions Don't Mean Good Security How much can you trust the assertions made by an organisation regarding their security posture? I don't mean to question whether the statements are truthful or not, but rather whether they provide any actual assurance whatsoever. For example, nearly 5 yea...
Hack Yourself First: How to go on the Cyber-Offence - NDC Porto 2020 Cyber-attacks have become a reality of running software on the web today. We find ourselves under a constant barrage of malicious activity from hacktivists, online criminals and increasingly, nation states. Successful attacks from these adversaries are pr...
GTC 2020: DLSS - Image Reconstruction for Real-time Rendering with Deep Learning In this talk, Edward Liu from NVIDIA Applied Deep Learning Research delves into the latest research progress on Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS), which uses deep learning and the NVIDIA Tensor Cores to reconstruct super sampled frames in real-time. He ...
Australian Kids' Smartwatch Maker Hit By Same Bug Again An Australian company that sells a GPS tracking smartwatch for kids accidently exposed personal data a second time. But this time around, it has not notified users
Learn Advanced Distributed Systems Design Change the way you think about designing software systems. Join Udi Dahan for this intensive course on modern architecture design practices.
Free April Month Build in-demand tech skills without leaving your house. Get free access to 7,000+ expert-led video courses and more all month long.
Solutions Architect, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) - Jobs at Apple Apply for a Solutions Architect, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) job at Apple. Read about the role and find out if it’s right for you.
Edit fiddle - JSFiddle - Code Playground Test your JavaScript, CSS, HTML or CoffeeScript online with JSFiddle code editor.
Free April Month Build in-demand tech skills without leaving your house. Get free access to 7,000+ expert-led video courses and more all month long.
Announcing .NET 5.0 Preview 2 | .NET Blog Today, we’re releasing .NET 5.0 Preview 2. It contains a set of smaller features and performance improvements. We’re continuing to work on the bigger features that will define the 5.0 release, some of which are starting to show up as initial designs at do...
All Microsoft’s PowerToys for Windows 10, Explained Microsoft is hard at work on PowerToys for Windows 10. This open-source project adds many powerful features to Windows, from a bulk file renamer to an Alt+Tab alternative that lets you search for windows from your keyboard.
Announcing Entity Framework Core 5.0 Preview 2 | .NET Blog Today we are excited to announce the second preview release of EF Core 5.0. Improvements include support for C# attributes to specify a backing field, complete discriminator mapping, and performance improvements with SQLite.
Welcome! The Physics Travel Guide is an expository wiki which explains concepts in three levels of difficulty. We call these levels: intuitive, concrete and abstract.
A Message to Our Users - Zoom Blog To our Zoom users around the world, Whether you are a global corporation that needs to maintain business continuity, a local government agency working to keep your community functioning, a school teacher educating students remotely, or a friend that wants...
How we reduced our Google Maps API cost by 94% Being a highly reliable commute partner to our customers, we at Cityflo take all kinds of measures to ensure high accuracy and predictability of our vehicle tracking system. Showing incorrect arrival time to our users will heavily hamper the experience th...
Use Azure Key Vault for Secrets in Azure DevOps Pipelines This blog shows how Azure Key Vault can be used in an Azure DevOps Pipeline build. By using Azure Key Vault to handle all your secrets or certificates, no secrets need to be saved to code, files, o…
The EARN IT Act Violates the Constitution Since senators introduced the EARN IT Act (S. 3398) in early March, EFF has called attention to the many ways in which the bill would be a disaster for Internet users’ free speech and security. We’ve explained how the EARN IT Act could be used to drastica...
Mastering Web Application Development with Express A comprehensive guide to developing production-ready web applications with Express
Lens | The Kubernetes IDE Lens IDE for Kubernetes. The only system you’ll ever need to take control of your Kubernetes clusters. It's open source and free. Download it today!
libgit2 v1.0 Released After many years of planning, writing code, and fixing bugs, libgit2 v1.0 has been released. 🎉🎉🎉 libgit2 is a linkable library for working with git repositories in any application, and you probably interact with the library, even if you don't know it...
How SNES emulators got a few pixels from complete perfection Bsnes needs your help to decode some three-decades-old PPU chips.
Resiliency with Polly – Anthony Giretti's .NET blog Polly is a .NET resilience and transient-fault-handling library that allows developers to express policies such as Retry, Circuit Breaker, Timeout, Bulkhead Isolation, and Fallback in a fluent and thread-safe manner. From version 6.0.1, Polly targets .NET...
Can .NET Core Framework Assemblies be Mapped back to Individual NuGet Packages? A Detective Story My friend and colleague Matt Ellis has this habit of nerd sniping me. Sometimes intentional, sometimes accidental. Today, he asked whether we could have a quick look at an issue together, which ended up being a nerd snipe of the latter category.
Getting Started with CQRS – Part 3 - Simple Talk Diogo Souza completes his series on CQRS. He demonstrates Event Sourcing to capture the data as it flows through the system which can then be analyzed without affecting the source.
Merging .NET Core and .NET Standard with New Target Framework Monikers (TFMs) – Thomas Claudius Huber Wait, before we begin, what is a Target Framework Monitor... ahem, sorry, Moniker, not Monitor, I mean, what is a Target Framework Moniker? When you create a C# project, you'll get a .csproj file, which is your C# project file.
Purging Technical Debt By Using Static Code Analysis Tools - Webinar Recording - .NET Tools Blog The recording of our March 26 webinar, Purging the Technical Debt By Using Static Code Analysis Tools, with Brian Di Croce, is now available. Subscribe to our community newsletter to receive notifications about future webinars. With today’s technologies a...
How to Build Custom Forms with React Hooks Creating forms in React has become easy. Learn how to create custom forms using Hooks, and stop downloading a ton of libraries for our applications.
How to SSH Properly How to SSH properly and easily improve the security of your SSH model without needing to deploy a new application or make any huge changes to UX.
Dom's Dodge Charger 42111 | Technic™ | Buy online at the Official LEGO® Shop AU High-speed adventures for car-loving kids
TheBlockZone | Nurturing creativity one building block at a time Browse the latest and greatest of building block model kits all at the lowest prices on the internet! At TheBlockZone we love building blocks. Do you?
Responding to the Census Please complete your form online, by phone, or by mail when your invitation to respond arrives. Visit my2020census.gov to begin.
Baltimore City lags in responding to census; Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Howard counties have much higher rates Baltimore has a low completion rate despite continuing pleas by elected officials concerned that an undercount would cost the city millions of dollars in federal aid.


FILL DETAILS
First Name
Last Name
Email
Subject
SEND
SHOW DETAILS
FirstName
LastName
Email
Subject
{{first}}
{{last}}
{{mail}}
{{subt}}


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 13381 of 1984 PETITIONER: M.C. Mehta RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/11/2006 BENCH: S. H. Kapadia & D. K. Jain JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T I. A. No. 431 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381 of 1984 with I.A. No. 451, I.A. Nos. 438, 439, 442-443, 445 and 447 in I.A. No. 431, I.A. No. 440 and I.A. No. 441 in I.A. No. 440.
KAPADIA, J.
Delay condoned in I.A. No. 443 in I.A. No. 431 in W.P. (C) No. 13381/84.
A purported vertical difference of opinion in the administrative hierarchy in CBI between the team of investigating officers and the law officers on one hand and Director of Prosecution on the other hand on the question as to whether there exists adequate evidence for judicial scrutiny in the case of criminal misconduct concerning Taj Heritage Corridor Project involving 12 accused including former Chief Minister has resulted in the legal stalemate which warrants interpretation of Section 173(2) Cr. PC. BACKGROUND FACTS:
On 25.3.2003, the Uttar Pradesh Government started a project known as Taj Heritage Corridor Project (hereinafter referred to as "the project") to divert the Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres between Agra Fort and the Taj and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities in terms of development of Heritage Corridor for Taj Trapezium Zone (hereinafter referred to as the "TTZ") at Agra. This led to the filing of an I.A. No. 387 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13381/84 pending in this Court. Vide Order dated 16.7.2003 this Court observed that, it was painful that the concerned persons in power are trying to damage or endanger the World Heritage by their hasty/ irregular/ illegal activities. By the said order, this Court directed a detailed inquiry as to who cleared the project, for what purpose it was cleared, and why it was cleared without the sanction of the competent authority. This Court also inquired as to whether their exists any illegality or irregularity and, if so, this Court called for the names of the concerned officers/ persons. Accordingly by the said order, a CBI inquiry was ordered. A report on the preliminary inquiry was called for from CBI within four weeks.
By Order dated 21.8.2003 in I.A. No. 376 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381/84 this Court ordered CBI to verify from the assets of the officers/ persons as to whether there was any flow of funds into their accounts from the state exchequer. This order was passed on the basis of the confidential report submitted by CBI to this Court under which it was reported that a sum of Rs. 17 crores were released from the state exchequer without proper sanction of the competent authority.
By Order dated 18.9.2003 in I.A. No. 376 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381/84 this Court after reciting the above facts noted the contents of the report submitted by CBI on 11.9.2003, which report recorded the following conclusions:
"15. An amount of Rs. 17 crores was unauthorisedly released by Shri R.K. Sharma, Secretary, Environment, U.P. without the approval of the departmental Minister. (Ref. Para 3.1.E.4 page 64 and para 3.1.E.31, page 81)
16. Contrary to the provisions existing in the State Government which require that in case of every non-recurring expenditure of Rs. 5 crores and above, approval of the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) of the State Government is required, no such approval was either sought or obtained before sanctioning the amount of Rs. 17 crores (Ref. Para 3.1.E.11, page 67).
17. An amount of Rs. 20 crores was sanctioned by Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister of Environment, U.P. for release without approval of DPRs and techno-feasibility reports and without clearance of the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) of the State Government and CCEA, Government of India (Ref. Para 3.1.E.39, page 86).
18. Shri Siddiqui subsequently tampered with the file and made interpolations in the Government records with an objective to cover up the fact that he had sanctioned Rs. 20 crores on 21/05/2003. (Ref. Para 3.1.E.40 (1 and 2) page 87).
19. Shri Siddiqui and Dr. V.K. Gupta, the present Secretary, Environment, U.P. pressurized Shri Rajendra, Prasad, Under Secretary, Environment Department, U.P. who also tampered with the file and made interpolations to cover the fact that the Minister had sanctioned Rs. 20 crores. (Ref. Para 3.1.E.37, page 86).
20. Shri K.C. Mishra, Secretary, Environment and Forest Government of India tampered with the file and made interpolations in Government records in order to cover up his omissions of not approving the proposals of his Joint Secretary and Special Secretary for writing to the State Government for a report and to ask them to carry out work only after necessary approvals and clearances. He obscured some portions of the notes dated 21/10/2002 and 08/05/2003 of Dr. Saroj, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forest so as to show that he was not a part of the decision making and had not shown his consent to the proposed project.
(Ref. Para 3.1.E.42 page 89).
21. Central Forensic Science Laboratory has given a report that interpolations were made in the files by Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister, U.P., Shri Rajendra Prasad, Under Secretary, U.P. and Shri K.C. Misra, Secretary, Environment and Forests, Government of India (Ref. Para 3.1.G.21, pages 106-107 and 3.1.E.44 (5-6), page 90)."
Accordingly, this Court inter alia directed CBI to register an FIR and make further investigation in accordance with law. By the said order, CBI was also directed to take appropriate steps for holding investigations against the former Chief Minister, Ms. Mayawati, and Mr. Nasimuddin Siddiqui, former Minister for Environment, U.P.. CBI was also directed to make investigations against other officers mentioned hereinabove. By the said order the Income Tax department was also directed to cooperate with CBI in further investigation. By the said order, CBI was directed to take into consideration the provisions of the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
By order dated 19.7.2004 in I.A. No. 376 etc. in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381/84 this Court directed CBI to furnish a self-contained note in respect of its findings against the officers of the State Government/ Central Government. CBI was given eight weeks time to complete the investigation in respect of FIR No. RC.18 and three months time was granted to complete the investigation in respect of FIR No. RC.19.
By Order dated 25.10.2004 in I.A. No. 376 etc. in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381/84 this Court noted that two disciplinary enquiries were required to be instituted by the State Government against Shri Punia, former Principal Secretary to C.M., U.P.. This was because CBI had submitted two distinct notes. On 25.10.2004 the departmental enquiry on CBI note I stood completed. However, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. submitted that in the absence of CBI furnishing to the disciplinary authority the statement of the former Chief Minister, the second disciplinary proceeding could not be initiated by the State against Shri Punia. This aspect is important. The case of Shri Punia was that he had acted under oral instructions of the former Chief Minister. This was required to be enquired into by the departmental enquiry, therefore, the State requested CBI to furnish the statement of the former Chief Minister which CBI had collected during investigation under RC.18. At that stage, time was sought by the CBI on the ground that investigation into RC.18 was nearing completion and that CBI was awaiting legal scrutiny of the matter. Therefore, this Court adjourned the matter stating that the second disciplinary enquiry against Shri Punia arising out of CBI note II stands deferred until availability of the statement of the former Chief Minister of the State. That statement was ordered to be given to the State Government within three weeks. It was further ordered that, if within three weeks CBI failed to make available the said statement then the State Government will proceed with the initiation of disciplinary enquiry against Shri Punia on the basis of the material available. Accordingly, this Court adjourned the matter stating that after legal scrutiny the report shall be submitted before this Court.
In the meantime, CBI submitted its report with detailed Annexures running into hundreds of pages.
By order dated 14.3.2005 in I.A. No. 431 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381/84, since the report of CBI was voluminous, this Court after going through the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "CVC Act") directed the records relating to prosecution of twelve accused be placed before the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "CVC") for scrutiny and recommendation. CVC was added as a party. Basically this Court wanted CVC to analyse the Report of CBI and give to the Court the summary of recommendations of various officers in the administrative hierarchy of CBI as the Court was informed that there was divergence of opinion between them.
To complete the chronology of orders passed by this Court, we may point out that the Director, CBI submitted his Status Report as on 31.12.2004 to this Court in which he stated as follows: "5. As regards investigation of RC0062003A0018, it is submitted that as there was difference of opinion between the officers of CBI in relation to the implication of individuals in the case, the matter was referred to the learned Attorney General of India through the Ministry of Law for obtaining his esteemed opinion in this case. The learned Attorney General has since given his considered opinion that in absence of any evidence to suggest criminal mens rea on the part of any individual and due to lack of evidence of any pecuniary benefit to any of the officers or any other person, the proper course of action would be to take disciplinary action against the officers for their omission and misconduct. I have gone through the report of investigation, comments of various officers including the opinion of the Learned Attorney General and I am of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to launch prosecution.
6. As disciplinary action has already been initiated by the authorities concerned on the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, action will be taken by filing a closure report under section 173 Cr. PC in the competent court incorporating all the facts/ circumstances revealed during the course of investigation."
CONTENTIONS:
Shri Krishan Mahajan, learned amicus curiae would submit that in the instant case, at the present stage, the question is of investigation and not of prosecution. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC), investigation consists of : site inspection, ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of the examination of various persons, the search and seizure and, lastly, formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial, and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. PC. Learned counsel submitted that the final step in the investigation, namely, formation of the opinion is to be of the officer in charge of the police station. This authority cannot be delegated although a provision entitling superior officers to supervise or participate is there under Sections 158 and 173(3) Cr. PC. Learned Counsel urged that the officer in charge of the police station or the investigating officer is the sole person who has to form the opinion under Section 173 Cr. PC and file the police report. In this connection, learned counsel pointed out that in this case Shri D.C. Dwivedi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Lucknow was the I.O.. He had filed the F.I.R. with thirteen sheets attached to it, registering a regular case after series of preliminary reports submitted to this Court in I.A. Nos. 376/03 and 431/05 filed by the amicus curiae. This case was assigned to the I.O. by Shri K. N. Tiwari, Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Lucknow. According to the learned counsel, the functions of the magistracy and the police are entirely different and though in the circumstances of a given case the Magistrate may or may not accept the report, he cannot infringe upon the jurisdiction of the police by compelling the police to change its opinion. Learned counsel submits that a field of activity reserved for the police and the executive has been expressly carved out under the Cr. PC.
Learned counsel further submitted that, the I.O. works under the entire CBI hierarchy; that the S.P. works under his supervisory officer of DIG rank in terms of the CBI (Crime) Manual-2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). But this entire administrative structure of the CBI has to function according to the provisions of the Cr.PC in the matter of investigation, in the matter of filing the charge-sheet/ final report under Section 173(2) and the superior officers of CBI cannot substitute the opinion of the S.P. if that opinion states that a case on the material gathered during the investigation has been made out. Similarly, if the S.P. opines on the basis of the material collected that no case is made out, such an opinion cannot be substituted by the higher hierarchy of the officers in CBI. In this connection, it is pointed out that, in the present case, the FIR registered is for offences under Section 120B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as also under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(i)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. It was urged that there are no separate provisions in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or the P.C. Act, 1988 as to the manner or the steps to be taken in the investigation of such offences and, therefore, though the investigation is conducted by the CBI, the provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC would equally apply to such investigation. Learned counsel submitted that the position of the entire hierarchy of CBI in the matter of filing of police report by the S.P. and formation of the opinion by the S.P. on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation is to be seen in the context of fair and impartial investigation. He is the Officer-in-charge of the police station. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in a Supreme Court monitored investigation the S.P. has to file his report before the Supreme Court only and not before the entire hierarchy of CBI whose only role is to supervise investigation. This hierarchy of CBI, according to the learned counsel, cannot make the S.P. to change his opinion. They cannot substitute the opinion of the S.P. with their own opinion. Learned counsel further contend that, in a Supreme Court monitored investigation even where the report of the S.P. is a closure report and the Director, CBI and Attorney General agree with the opinion of the S. P., still it is the duty of the CBI to place the entire material before the Supreme Court and it is for the Court to examine and be satisfied that the authorities have reasonably come to such conclusion.
It was next urged that the Director of Prosecution in the CBI has no role to play at the stage of investigation which includes formation of an opinion by the S.P.
Shri Rao, learned senior counsel on behalf of the CVC submitted that pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court dated 14.3.2005 CVC had examined the records of CBI made available to it. The CVC had also called for further information from CBI. After vetting the entire record, CVC had submitted its report to this Court on 9.5.2005. Learned counsel submitted that under Section 8(1)(a) of the CVC Act, the CVC is empowered to exercise superintendence over the functioning of CBI insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the P.C. Act, 1988 and, therefore, when the CBI investigates under the P.C. Act, 1988 against public servants serving in connection with affairs of a State Government, such investigation is subject to the superintendence of CVC. This submission was made on behalf of CVC because it was argued on behalf of some of the accused that CVC had no power of superintendence of cases involving public servants employed in connection with affairs of the State Government.
Learned counsel for CVC submitted that in order to fulfill the responsibility of exercising superintendence over the functioning of CBI insofar as it relates to investigations of offences under the P.C. Act, 1988, the CVC is entitled to scrutinize investigation reports of the CBI at any stage before filing of charge-sheets/ closure reports. For this purpose, CVC is empowered to issue suitable advice in cases under investigation. Such advice, according to the learned counsel, is in the nature of an opinion, and not a binding direction.
On the facts of the case, learned counsel for CVC urged that, in the present case the preliminary inquiry as well as the investigation were conducted by the CBI against the former Chief Minister, officers of the State Government and others under the direction of this Court. It was the Supreme Court which had referred the matter to CVC and, therefore, the CVC was bound to submit its report. In the circumstances, learned counsel submitted that, it cannot be said that the report of the CVC is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity since the Supreme Court has absolute power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass any order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Shri Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the former Chief Minister submitted that this Court should be loathe to interfere in investigation since it is a field of activity reserved for the police and the executive. He submitted that, in the present case, we are still at the stage of investigation and unless an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power is made out, no interference is called for under Article 32 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submitted that, in the present case, CVC had no role to play, particularly since the case pertains to conduct of the officers who are the employees of the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that public servants serving in connection with affairs of the State Government fell outside the powers of CVC. Learned counsel submitted that, in any event, CVC had no power to direct the manner in which CBI will conclude the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the opinion as to whether the case is made out for judicial scrutiny or not has to be the decision of CBI and unless there is gross abuse of power this Court should not intervene in the field of investigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. Learned counsel urged that, in the present case, there is no such gross abuse of power made out, and, therefore, this Court should not interfere under Article 32 of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
The key issue which arises for determination in this case is: whether on the facts and the circumstance of this case, the Director, CBI, who has not given his own independent opinion, was right in referring the matter for opinion to the Attorney General of India, particularly when the entire investigation and law officers' team was ad idem in its opinion on filing of the charge-sheet and only on the dissenting opinion of the Director of Prosecution, whose opinion is also based on the interpretation of the legal evidence, which stage has not even arrived. The opinion of the Director, CBI is based solely on the opinion of the Attorney General after the reference.
CASE LAW ON THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE HIERARCHY IN CBI IN SUPREME COURT MONITORED CASES:
In the case of H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi this Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides not merely for judicial enquiry into or trial of alleged offences but also for prior investigation thereof. Section 5 of the Code shows that all offences shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Code. When information of the commission of cognizable offence is received, the appropriate police officer has the authority to enter on the investigation of the same. Thus, investigation is a normal preliminary for an accused being put up for trial for a cognizable offence. Investigation usually starts on information relating to the commission of an offence given to an officer in charge of a police station and recorded under Section 154 of the Code. If from information so received or otherwise, the officer in charge of the police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, he or his subordinate has to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Under Section 155 the officer in charge of a police station has the power of making a search in any place for the seizure of anything believed to be necessary for the purpose of investigation. A subordinate officer may be deputed by him for that purpose. The investigating officer has also the power to arrest the person under Section 54 of the Code. It is important to notice that where the investigation is conducted not by the officer in charge of the police station but by a subordinate officer such subordinate officer has to report the result of the investigation to the officer in charge of the police station. If, upon the completion of the investigation it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is no sufficient evidence, he may decide to release the suspected accused. If, it appears to him that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to place the accused on trial, he has to take necessary steps under Section 170 of the Code. In either case, on completion of the investigation he has to submit a report to the Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code in the prescribed form. Thus, under the Code, investigation consists of proceeding to the spot, ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, collection of evidence and formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial, and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173. The scheme of the Code shows that while it is permissible for an officer in charge of a police station to depute some subordinate officer to conduct some of these steps in the investigation, the responsibility for each one of the above steps is that of the officer in charge of the police station (see Section 168 of the Code). This Court had categorically stated in the above judgment that, the final step in the investigation, namely, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be of the officer in charge of the police station and this function cannot be delegated. This Court unequivocally observed that, there is no provision for delegation of the above function regarding formation of the opinion but only a provision entitling the superior officers to supervise or participate under Section 551 (corresponding to Section 36 of the present Code). This Court further held that, a police report which results from an investigation as provided for in Section 190 of the Code is the material on which cognizance is taken. But from that it cannot be said that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance.
In the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra this Court held that when a cognizable offence is reported to the police they may after investigation take action under Section 169 or Section 170 Cr. PC. If the police thinks that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused, they may, under Section 169 release the accused from custody or, if the police thinks that there is sufficient evidence, they may, under Section 170, forward the accused to a competent Magistrate. In either case the police has to submit a report of the action taken, under Section 173, to the competent Magistrate who considers it judicially under Section 190 and takes the following action:
(a) If the report is a charge-sheet under Section 170, it is open to the Magistrate to agree with it and take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b); or decline to take cognizance. But he cannot call upon the police to submit a report that the accused need not be proceeded against on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence.
(b) If the report is of the action taken under Section 169, then the Magistrate may agree with the report and close the proceedings. If he disagrees with the report, he can give directions to the police under Section 156(3) to make a further investigation. If the police, after further investigation submits a charge-sheet, the Magistrate may follow the procedure where the charge-sheet under Section 170 is filed; but if the police are still of the opinion that there was no sufficient evidence against the accused, the Magistrate may or may not agree with it. Where he agrees, the case against the accused is closed. Where he disagrees and forms an opinion that the facts mentioned in the report constitute an offence, he can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c). But the Magistrate cannot direct the police to submit a charge-sheet, because the submission of the report depends entirely upon the opinion formed by the police and not on the opinion of the Magistrate. If the Magistrate disagrees with the report of the police he can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) or (c), but, he cannot compel the police to form a particular opinion on investigation and submit a report according to such opinion.
This judgment shows the importance of the opinion to be formed by the officer in charge of the police station. The opinion of the officer in charge of the police station is the basis of the report. Even a competent Magistrate cannot compel the concerned police officer to form a particular opinion. The formation of the opinion of the police on the material collected during the investigation as to whether judicial scrutiny is warranted or not is entirely left to the officer in charge of the police station. There is no provision in the Code empowering a Magistrate to compel the police to form a particular opinion. This Court observed that, although the Magistrate may have certain supervisory powers under the Code, it cannot be said that when the police submits a report that no case has been made out for sending the accused for trial, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to file a charge-sheet. The formation of the said opinion, by the officer in charge of the police station, has been held to be a final step in the investigation, and that final step has to be taken only by the officer in charge of the police station and by no other authority.
In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi and Ors. investigation was entrusted to CBI in the fodder scam case by the High Court to ensure proper and honest performance of duty by CBI. This Court directed CBI officers to inform the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court about the progress of the investigation and to obtain his directions if so required for conducting the investigation. The Joint Director of CBI submitted his report on the investigation carried out by him to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court found that the Director was trying to interfere with the investigation and, therefore, the High Court directed that all reports of the CBI officers shall be submitted directly to the court without being forwarded to the Director, CBI. This order of the High Court was challenged. It was held that the Director, CBI was responsible and accountable for the proper investigation of the case and, therefore, he cannot be excluded from the investigation. It was, however, observed that the Director, CBI was duty-bound to make a fair, honest and complete investigation and officers associated with the investigation have to function as members of a cohesive team engaged in common pursuit of such an investigation so as to uphold the majesty of the law and preserve the rule of law. It was held that, in case of any difference of opinion between officers of CBI in respect of the investigation, final decision would not be taken by the Director himself or by the Director merely on the opinion of Legal Department of the CBI, but the matter would be decided according to the opinion of the Attorney General of India for the purpose of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet against any such individual. In that event, the opinion would be sought from the Attorney General after making available to him of the opinions expressed on the subject by the persons associated with the investigation as a part of the materials. We quote hereinbelow paras 13 and 14 of the said judgment:
"13. We make it clear that in case of any difference of opinion between the officers of the CBI in relation to the implication of any individual in the crimes or any other matter relating to the investigation, the final decision in the matter would not be taken by the Director, CBI, himself or by him merely on the opinion of the Legal Department of the CBI; and in such a situation, the matter would be determined according to the opinion of the Attorney General of India for the purpose of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet against any such individual. In that event, the opinion would be sought from the Attorney General after making available to him all the opinions expressed on the subject by the persons associated with the investigation as a part of the materials.
14. It appears necessary to add that the Court, in this proceeding, is concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by the CBI and not the merits of the accusations being investigated, which are to be determined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by law. Care must, therefore, be taken by the High Court to avoid making any observation which may be construed as the expression of its opinion on merits relating to the accusation against any individual. Any such observation made on the merits of the accusation so far by the High Court, including those in Para 8 of the impugned order are not to be treated as final, or having the approval of this Court. Such observations should not, in any manner influence the decision on merits at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet. The directions given by this Court in its aforesaid order dated 19.3.1996 have to be understood in this manner by all concerned, including the High Court."
This position was clarified in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi and Ors. . It was observed that the nature of the PIL proceedings before the Patna High Court in the fodder scam case was somewhat similar to the proceedings in Vineet Narain's case. It was observed by this Court that, the performance of the PIL proceedings is essentially to ensure performance of statutory duty by the CBI. The duty of the court in such proceedings is to ensure that CBI and other government agencies do their duty in conformity with law. According to the Code, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for trial is that of the police officer making the investigation and the final step in the investigation is to be taken only by the police and by no other authority. It was observed that, in order to ensure compliance of this aspect of the Code, the directions were issued from time to time to CBI that in case of difference of opinion at any stage during the investigation, the final decision shall be of the Attorney General on reference being made to him on the difference of opinion between the officers concerned. This Court further observed in that case that the High Court was only required to ensure that the Director, CBI did not close any investigation based only upon his individual opinion, if there be any difference of opinion between the Director, CBI and the other officers concerned in the CBI.
In Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. certain measures by way of checks and balances were recommended by this Court to insulate CBI from extraneous influence of any kind. It was observed that, unless a proper investigation is made followed by a proper prosecution the rule of law will lose significance. Accordingly, directions were issued till such time as the legislature steps in by way of proper legislation. One of the points which arose for determination in that case was the significance of the word "superintendence" in Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It was held that the overall superintendence of CBI vests in the Central Government and, therefore, by virtue of Section 3 of that Act the power vested in the Central Government to specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by CBI. But once that jurisdiction is attracted by virtue of the notification under Section 3, the actual investigation is to be governed by the statutory provisions under the general law applicable to such investigation and the power of the investigator cannot be curtailed by the executive instructions issued under Section 4 by the Central Government. The general superintendence over the functioning of the Directorate/ department and specification of the offences to be investigated by CBI is not the same thing, therefore, the Central Government is precluded from controlling the initiation and the actual process of investigation. It was held that, the word "superintendence" in Section 4(1) cannot be construed in a wider sense to permit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence by CBI. Therefore, the Central Government was precluded from issuing any direction to CBI to curtail or inhibit its jurisdiction to investigate an offence specified in the notification issued under Section 3 by a directive under Section 4(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The constitution of the CVC flowed from the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain6 (supra). It is in this judgment that a direction was given to the Central Government by this Court for granting statutory status to the CVC.
In the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and anr. this Court has held that the provision contained in Chapter XII Cr.PC shows that detailed and elaborate provisions have been made for securing an investigation into an offence of which information has been given. The manner and the method of conducting the investigation are left entirely to the officer in charge of the police station. A Magistrate has no power to interfere with the same. The formation of the opinion whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to a Magistrate or not, as contemplated by Sections 169 and 170, is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station and a Magistrate has absolutely no role to play at this stage. Similarly, after completion of the investigation while making a report to the Magistrate under Section 173, the requisite details have to be submitted by the officer in charge of the police station without any kind of interference or direction of a Magistrate and this will include an opinion regarding the fact whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom, as provided by clause (d) of sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 Cr. PC. These provisions are applicable even in cases under the P.C. Act, 1988 vide Section 22 thereof. The Magistrate is not bound to accept the final report submitted by the police and if he feels that the evidence and the material collected during the investigation justify prosecution of the accused, he may not accept that report and take cognizance of the offence and summon the accused, which would not constitute interference with the investigation as such. In the said judgment, it was further observed, relying upon the judgment in Vineet Narain6 (supra), that once the jurisdiction is conferred on CBI to investigate an offence by virtue of notification under Section 3 of the Act, the powers of investigation are governed by the statutory provisions and they cannot be curtained by any executive instruction issued under Section 4(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Analyses of the above judgments show that there is a clear-cut and well-demarcated sphere of activities in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation. It is obliged to prevent crime. If an offence is committed allegedly, it is the State's duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates through the police department and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purposes of proving the offence. Once that is completed, the investigating officer submits report to the court requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.PC and his duty comes to an end. Therefore, there is a well-defined and well- demarcated functions in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication by the court. Lastly, the term "investigation" under Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC includes opinion of the officer in charge of the police station as to whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to the concerned court or not. This opinion is not legal evidence. At the stage of Section 173(2) the question of interpretation of legal evidence does not arise. In any event, that function is that of the courts.
CASE LAW ON THE ROLE OF OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE POLICE STATION:
In the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Ors. this Court observed vide para 76 as follows:
"76. The charge sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC The Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section
170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1980) 3 SCC 152; that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the investigating officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence."
(emphasis supplied) In the case of Kaptan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. this Court held vide para 5 as follows:
"5. From a conspectus of the above decisions it follows that the revisional power of the High Court while sitting in judgment over an order of acquittal should not be exercised unless there exists a manifest illegality in the judgment or order of acquittal or there is grave miscarriage of justice. Read in the context of the above principle of law we have no hesitation in concluding that the judgment of the trial court in the instant case is patently wrong and it has caused grave miscarriage of justice. The High Court was therefore fully justified in setting aside the order of acquittal. From the judgment of the trial court we find that one of the grounds that largely weighed with it for acquitting the appellants was that an Inspector of CID who had taken up the investigation of the case and was examined by the defence (DW 3) testified that during his investigation he found that the story as made out by the prosecution was not true and on the contrary the plea of the accused (appellants) that in the night of the incident a dacoity with murder took place in the house of Baijnath by unknown criminals and the appellants were implicated falsely was true. It is trite that result of investigation can never be legal evidence; and this Court in Vijender v. State of Delhi (1997)6 SCC 171 made the following comments while dealing with this issue:
'The reliance of the trial Judge on the result of investigation to base his findings is again patently wrong. If the observation of the trial Judge in this regard is taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that a finding of guilt can be recorded against an accused without a trial, relying solely upon the police report submitted under Section 173 CrPC, which is the outcome of an investigation.
The result of investigation under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code is a conclusion that an Investigating Officer draws on the basis of materials collected during investigation and such conclusion can only form the basis of a competent court to take cognizance thereupon under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and to proceed with the case for trial, where the materials collected during investigation are to be translated into legal evidence. The trial court is then required to base its conclusion solely on the evidence adduced during the trial; and it cannot rely on the investigation or the result thereof. Since this is an elementary principle of criminal law, we need not dilate on this point any further'." (emphasis supplied) In the case of R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu and Ors. the facts were as follows. A young bride committed suicide within seven months of her marriage. An inquiry under Section 174(3) Cr.PC was held. The Magistrate conducted the inquiry and submitted a report holding that due to mental restlessness she had committed suicide and no one was responsible. He further opined that her death was not due to dowry demand. However, the police continued with the investigation and submitted a challan against the husband of the deceased and his mother for the offence under Sections 304 B and 498 A IPC. The father of the deceased was not satisfied with the challan as the sister-in-law and the father-in-law were not arraigned as accused. Therefore, the deceased's father moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. A Single Judge of the High Court directed that the papers be placed before the Public Prosecutor. He was asked to give an opinion on the matter and, thereafter, the court directed that an amended charge-sheet should be filed in the concerned court. This court held as follows:
"In this case the High Court has committed an illegality in directing the final report to be taken back and to file a fresh report incorporating the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. Such an order cannot stand legal scrutiny. The formation of the opinion, whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial, should be that of the officer in charge of the police station and none else. There is no stage during which the investigating officer is legally obliged to take the opinion of a Public Prosecutor or any authority, except the superior police officer in the rank as envisaged in Section 36 of the Code. A Public Prosecutor is appointed, as indicated in Section 24 CrPC, for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in the court. He has also the power to withdraw any case from the prosecution with the consent of the court. He is the officer of the court. Thus the Public Prosecutor is to deal with a different field in the administration of justice and he is not involved in investigation. It is not the scheme of the Code for supporting or sponsoring any combined operation between the investigating officer and the Public Prosecutor for filing the report in the court."
(emphasis supplied) APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE:
At the outset, we may state that this Court has repeatedly emphasized in the above judgments that in Supreme Court monitored cases this Court is concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by CBI and that this Court is not concerned with the merits of the accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the question which we have to decide in the present case is whether the administrative hierarchy of officers in the CBI, in the present case, have performed their duties in a proper and honest manner.
As stated above, the formation of the opinion, whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial, should be that of the officer in charge of the police station and none else. Under the CBI Manual, the officer in charge of the police station is the S.P.. In this connection, we quote hereinbelow the CBI Manual, which though not binding on this Court in Supreme Court monitored cases, nonetheless, the said Manual throws light on the controversy in hand. We quote clauses 6.1 and 19.15 of the CBI (Crime) Manual-2005 hereinbelow:
"DIRECTOR, CBIMatters to be shown to DCBI 6.1 Director, CBI should be informed of all important matters and his advice or instructions obtained wherever this is considered necessary by Special Director, Additional Director, Joint Directors, DIsG, Director of Prosecution, Director, CFSL and other Senior Officers. In particular, the following matters should be referred to him."
"19.15 SP's Report is a very important document and should be prepared personally by the SP in the prescribed format. The concerned Departments/ Government Undertakings assess the CBI investigation of their cases solely on the basis of the SP's Reports. The report should be grammatically correct, clear and unambiguous. The report should be brief without repetitions and should contain all necessary data. The internal differences of opinion among CBI Officers should not find mention in the SP's Report, which should advance all arguments to justify the final order passed by the Competent Authority in the CBI. The final recommendation should be precise. If sanction is required, the relevant Section (including sub-section) of law under which sanction is required should be mentioned with brief grounds. In some of the cases, charge sheets cannot be filed and only complaints by certain statutory authorities can be filed in the Court. In such cases, the relevant section prescribing the filing of a complaint should be mentioned in the SP's Report. It should be borne in mind by the SP that the efficiency and the quality of work done by the CBI would be viewed mainly on the basis of the SP's Report and, therefore, no effort should be spared to make it factually correct, systematic, cogent and logical." (emphasis supplied) In the present case, the investigating team consisted of the I.O., S.P., D.I.G., Joint Director and Additional Director CBI. In the present case, the law officers consisted of D.L.A. and A.L.A.. In the present case, the entire investigating team as well as the said law officers are ad idem in their mind. They have recommended prosecution. It is only the Director of Prosecution and the Sr. P.P. who have opined that a closure report should be filed. It may be noted that Sr. P.P. does not find place in clause 6.1 which refers to the administrative hierarchy of CBI. Further, the Director of Prosecution is the only officer who had dissented from the opinion of the investigating team including the S.P.. It appears that this opinion is also based only on interpretation of legal evidence. Moreover, as can be seen from the Status Report dated 31.12.2004, the Director, CBI has not given his independent opinion. He has merely relied upon the opinion of the Attorney General. We can understand the Director, CBI expressing an opinion and then referring the matter to the Attorney General. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that, there was no difference of opinion in the matter of investigation between the concerned officers of CBI and, therefore, there was no question of the Director, CBI referring the matter to the Attorney General of India. As stated by this Court in the case of R. Sarla10 (supra), the formation of opinion, whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial has to be of the officer in charge of the police station. One fails to understand why an opinion of Sr. P.P. had been taken in the present case. He is not a member of the hierarchy. The S.P. is not legally obliged to take his opinion. In the circumstances, when there was no difference of opinion in the concerned team, the question of seeking opinion of the Attorney General did not arise. Lastly, even under clause 19.15 of the CBI Manual it is expressly stated that the report of the S.P. should be prepared personally by the S.P. and that the internal differences of opinion among CBI Officers should not find place in the SP's Report. As stated above, CBI was required to follow the procedure in Cr.PC. The result of the investigation by the police is not legal evidence. Keeping in mind the scheme of Sections 168, 169, 170 and 173 of the Cr.PC, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the entire material collected by CBI along with the report of the S.P. to be placed before the concerned court/ Special Judge in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.PC. The decision to accept or reject the report of the S.P. shall be that of the concerned court/ Special Judge, who will decide the matter in accordance with law.
Before concluding two points need clarification. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court is empowered to take aid and assistance of any Authority for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. In the present case, at one stage of the matter, voluminous records were placed by CBI before this Court along with the recommendations of its officers. To vet and analyse the material, this Court essentially directed CVC to study the material, analyse the findings and give its recommendations as to the manner in which the investigations have been carried out. Since CVC has fairly stated before this Court that its advice is only in the nature of an opinion which is not a binding direction in this case, we are not required to examine the scope of the CVC Act, 2003. Secondly, in our earlier order, we have given time to CBI to complete legal scrutiny when we were told that there was difference of opinion in the administrative hierarchy of CBI. However, after going through the recommendations of the above officers, we are of the view, as stated above, that there was no difference of opinion of the concerned officers and, therefore, there was no question of reference to the Attorney General. We reject the Status Report dated 31.12.2004 as it is a charade of the performance of duty by the CBI. Thus, a case for judicial review is made out.
We, accordingly, direct the CBI to place the evidence/ material collected by the investigating team along with the report of the S.P. as required under Section 173(2) Cr.PC before the concerned court/ Special Judge who will decide the matter in accordance with law. It is necessary to add that, in this case, we were concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of duty by the CBI and our above observations and reasons are confined only to that aspect of the case and they should not be understood as our opinion on the merits of accusation being investigated. We do not wish to express any opinion on the recommendations of the S.P.. It is made clear that none of the other opinions/ recommendations including that of the Attorney General of India, CVC shall be forwarded to the concerned court/ Special Judge.
In the matters after matters, we find that the efficacy and ethics of the governmental authorities are progressively coming under challenge before this Court by way of PIL for failure to perform their statutory duties. If this continues, a day might come when the rule of law will stand reduced to "a rope of sand".
The above Interlocutory applications are accordingly disposed of.


The best jQuery plugin for app look-alike on- and off-canvas menus with sliding submenus for your website and web-app.
Check out the example on the left or play around with the options.
For the full documentation please visit: mmenu.frebsite.nl


Boyne Falls
Boyne Falls is a movie starring Axel Harney, Mike Kopera, and Juan Monsalvez. Two contentious buddies head into the forest for a work retreat, stumble upon an isolated meth lab, and find themselves fighting for their lives.


Hello, I'm Sambhav!
Code Fanatic | Content Enthusiast | CryptoZombie
Stuff I Do | What I Like
I'm interested in researching Web3.0, Quantum Cryptography and Influences of AI


Single thumbnail with multiple images in PhotoSwipe.
List of thumbnails (using grid component), starting at clicked/tapped image in PhotoSwipe.