CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation —Appellant
versus
Pranab Kumar Mukherjee and Ors. —Respondents
G.A. No.8 with G.A. No.9 to 12 of 2014
Decided on 17.6.2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and adoption of a procedure of registration of first information report in terms of C.B.I. Manual, 2005 does not vitiate registration of first information report and further proceeding arising therefrom.
2. The act of registration of the F.I.R. in terms of the C.B.I. Manual by an officer cannot be called into question on the ground that the First Information Report was lodged at the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation which is not notified as police station under Section 2(s) of the Code.

Headnote:Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946—Section 5—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154, 156 and 157—Acquittal of all accused by trial court on premise that CBI had not registered first information report at any police station duly notified by State of West Bengal under Section 2 (s) of Cr.P.C.—Appeal—FIR was drawn up by officer attached to CBI—Adoption of procedure of registration of FIR in terms of CBI Manual, 2005 did not vitiate registration of FIR and further proceedings arising therefrom—Trial Judge erred in a finding that prosecution against accused were void ab-initio.

       Held: The issue which falls for decision in these appeals is whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused persons on the ground that the first information report in the aforesaid cases had not been registered at a police station notified by the State of West Bengal under Section 2(s) of the Code. It is undisputed that Central Bureau of Investigation had authority to investigate the offences in the instant case. It is also not in dispute that first information report was drawn up by an officer attached to Central Bureau of Investigation before commencing investigation. The bone of contention that the said first information reports in these cases were was drawn up at the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation and not in a police station notified by the State of West Bengal under Section 2(s) of the Code.

       Legality of registration of first information report by Central Bureau of Investigation in terms of C.B.I. Manual vis-à-vis Section 154 Cr.P.C. fell for decision in the said report and was answered accordingly in paragraph 27 thereof. The Apex Court held non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and adoption of a procedure of registration of first information report in terms of C.B.I. Manual, 2005 does not vitiate registration of first information report and further proceeding arising therefrom.

       It is, therefore, clear that power of the members of Central Bureau of Investigation under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 cannot be equated with the powers of the regular police under the Code and the act of registration of the F.I.R. in terms of the C.B.I. Manual by an officer cannot be called into question on the ground that the First Information Report was lodged at the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation which is not notified as police station under Section 2(s) of the Code.

       In Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. Jaipur –Vs.- State of Rajasthan & Anr., (AIR 2001 SC 668), the Apex Court had held that a Magistrate in exercise of powers under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. could not direct a member of Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate a crime inasmuch as investigation done by an officer of the said agency cannot be said to be an investigation commenced by an officer in-charge of the police station in terms of Section 156(1) Cr. P.C. The ratio of the said report, in fact, supports the contention of Mr. Ali that the powers of the officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation are derivable from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and investigation commenced by them cannot be said to be an investigation under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. If that were so, then the question of registration of F.I.R. at a police station notified by the State of West Bengal under section 2(s) of the Code cannot be said to be a sine qua non for commencement of investigation by a member of the central agency under the DSPE Act, 1946.

       In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge erred in law in coming to a finding that the prosecutions against the appellants were void ab initio as the first information reports had not been registered at a police station notified by the State of West Bengal. Hence the orders of acquittal are liable to be set aside.

       Before conclusion I would like to record my disapproval as to the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in conducting the trial in the instant case. In all these cases, charges had been framed and trial was in progress. Once the trial is in progress, it is not within the ambit of a trial court to prematurely foreclose a trial save and except the manner as laid down in the Code. There is nothing in the Code which empowers the trial court to exercise its inherent power to acquit the accused person even before conclusion of prosecution evidence. Only in rare cases, where after taking the prosecution evidence and examining the accused but before the accused enters his defence, if the Judge considers that the case is one of “no evidence”, he may record an order of acquittal under section 232 of the Code. (Paras 9, 13, 15, 17, 22 and 23)

       Result: Appeal allowed.