IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Appellant
Versus
M/s Bhushan Power And Steel Limited (bpsl) & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.M.C. No. 1724/2020
Decided On : 11-08-2021
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Investigation - 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC, Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission for Sub Inspector Amit Kumar to assist the main Investigating Officer in a high-ticket fraud case. The Trial Court declined the application based on the interpretation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court's decision was found to be contrary to the mandate of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988, which allows an officer below the requisite rank to assist the Investigating Officer under direct supervision.
Issues: The issue involved was whether a person below the rank of Inspector can assist the main Investigating Officer in conducting investigation, based on the interpretation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the responsibility of all steps remains with the officer in charge of the investigation, and the subordinate officer must work under direct supervision. The court cited previous cases to support the interpretation of Section 17.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court's decision was overturned based on the correct interpretation of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988.
ORDER
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-20, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner's application seeking permission for Sub Inspector Amit Kumar to assist the main Investigating Officer in conducting investigation, was declined.
2. Learned SPP for CBI has submitted that the present case bearing RCBD12019E0002 was registered under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/468/471/477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 on 05.04.2019 against the respondent company and others. It is submitted that the officials of the respondent company entered into a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat banks/financial institutions/Govt. exchequer, dishonestly and fraudulently diverted huge amount of bank funds.
3. It is further submitted that the main Investigating Officer Insp. Kapil Dhanked has been investigating other cases and also looking proceedings pending before different Courts including this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. The present case is a high-ticket fraud requiring investigation all over the country. Further, the application in question was moved before the Trial Court seeking permission for 57 Amit Kumar to assist Insp. Kapil Dhanked in conducting investigation as the bank documents are stated to be voluminous and the investigation is to be conducted speedily.
4. Ms. Nishtha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that without prejudice to their rights and contentions to challenge the entire investigation in appropriate proceedings for being contrary to mandate of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"), the respondents have no objection to the prayer made in the present application. She has informed that on an application filed by the Punjab National Bank under Section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT had initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Subsequently, the NCLAT has also approved the Resolution Plan, which now has been implemented on 26.03.2021, when the new management has taken over.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. In the present case, so far, the investigation has been conducted by Insp. Kapil Dhanked. It has been stated that the documents are voluminous and the investigation is to be carried out all over India for which reason, Insp. Kapil Dhanked would need the assistance of 57 Amit Kumar.
7. The short issue involved in the present case is whether a person below the rank of Inspector can assist the main Investigating Officer in conducting investigation. The issue in question arises out of interpretation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is contained in Chapter IV of the Act dealing with investigation into cases under the Act as well as for the persons who are authorised to investigate and it reads as under:
"17. Persons authorised to investigate- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank, -
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) Elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefore without a warrant:
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metrop
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh vs. State of Delhi
Muni Lai vs. Delhi Administration
Union of India and Others represented through Superintendent of Police vs. T. Nathamuni
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 allows an officer below the requisite rank to assist the Investigating Officer under direct supervision, and the responsibility of all steps remai....
The mandatory nature of the provisions under Section 17 of the PC act and the importance of fulfilling statutory expectations with due care and caution.
Investigation proceedings remain valid despite procedural defects if sufficient substantive evidence supports charges, emphasizing the necessity of proper police authorization and hierarchical compli....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to discharge the accused was erroneous, and the court directed the Special Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with th....
The main legal point established is that an investigation carried out by an officer not authorized under Section 17 of the PC Act is illegal and can lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.
It is not mandatory for the investigating officer to seek and obtain permission of the court for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code, but it is desirable as a matter of ....
Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be conducted by an officer of adequate rank; otherwise, it vitiates proceedings and convictions based on such investigations cannot be upheld....
The Special Judge exceeded jurisdiction by ordering CBI investigation without state consent, violating statutory provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.