IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
CBI - Appellant
Versus
Sachin Garg - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1069 of 2022, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4596 of 2022
Decided On : 09-03-2022
CBI - Setting aside of Orders - Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the orders of the Special Judge related to the entrustment of investigation to a specific officer under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The CBI sought permission to entrust the investigation to a specific officer, but the orders indicated that the respondent was not a party to the proceedings and the investigation was still in progress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the observations made by the Special Judge were scathing and made without material. The court set aside the impugned orders and dismissed the application seeking permission to entrust the investigation. The court also emphasized the need for due decorum to be maintained by the CBI before the Special Judge.
Issues: The legal questions arising included the withdrawal of the application under Section 17 of the PC act, the effect of withdrawal on the proceedings, and the allowance of irregularity through withdrawal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions under Section 17 of the PC act and the need for due care and caution in fulfilling the statutory expectations. The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining decorum and compliance with court orders.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the application seeking permission to entrust the investigation was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also directed the CBI to maintain due decorum before the Special Judge.
JUDGMENT
anu Malhotra, J. - CRL.M.a.4597/2022 (Ex.)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1069/2022
2. The petitioner, vide the present petition seeks the setting aside of the orders dated 13.01.2022 and 07.03.2022 of the Court of the learned Special Judge, PC act (CBI-03), Rouse avenue, District Court, New Delhi in Misc. DJ aSJ : 90/2021. The impugned orders dated 13.01.2022 and 07.03.2022 indicate that the respondent to the petition Mr.Sachin Garg has not been a party to the proceedings which have been impugned and it is submitted on behalf of the CBI that he is an accused in relation to RC No.219/2021 E0007 registered on 22.09.2021.
3. It is informed on behalf of the CBI in reply to a specific Court query that the investigation is still in progress and that the said Mr.Sachin Garg has so far not been arrested.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2022 of the learned Special Judge, PC act (CBI-03), Rouse avenue, District Court, New Delhi which on a perusal thereof is indicated to be on an application under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC act, 1988) filed on behalf of the CBI seeking permission to entrust the investigation of the case RC No.219/2021 E0007 to Sh. T.D. Tripathi, Sub Inspector of Police, CBI. EO-I, New Delhi, in as much as, vide the said order dated 13.01.2022 whilst there was no adjudication of the prayer made by the petitioner qua the application under Section 17 of the PC act, 1988 seeking permission for entrustment of the investigation of the RC No.219/2021 E0007 to Sh. T.D. Tripathi, Sub Inspector of Police, CBI. EO-I, New Delhi, it had been observed vide paragraphs 8, 9, 10 & 11 to the effect:-
'8. In view of the above facts, instant application has been moved seeking permission to entrust the instant case to Sh. T.D. Tripathi, Sub Inspector of Police, CBI. EO-I, New Delhi for investigation.
9. Various opportunities have been given to the prosecution to explain the circumstances preceding the present application, however, no opportunity has been utilized and it is repeated merely due to occupation of IOs i.e. SSPs, DSPs and Inspectors of the Branch being pre-occupying with investigation of other cases entrusted to them and being busy with investigation of Coal Block allocation case, no IO of appropriate rank for conducting investigation is available. The averment as it on its face sounds is devoid of reasonableness and substance. at the threshold, it be observed that no material by way of any document to suggest number of IOs, their names and their being assigned investigation of which matter is detailed. In a general manner, casually and carelessly as a matter of right and assertion it is being claimed. any govt. official who is assigned to any department is expected to perform the work and it cannot be a ground for taking away the jurisdiction that he is busy. Furthermore, the responsibility of equivalent, fair and proper work assignment and distribution of work is the duty and part of responsibility of the administrative Head of the Department. Nowhere any material by way of any noting/copy etc. to show any application of mind in discharge of above responsibility is pointed out or is substantiated to suggest peculiarity of circumstances having been arisen out of exhausting work load or being beyond control for which he has applied reasons and despite the same been left helpless. In this background, the possibilities of the submissions having arisen from an unscrupulous background cannot be completely dislodged. It also indicates towards the incompetence of the concerned partially involved in forming the contents of present application.
10. In the circumstance above, it is necessary that the Department Head/In-charge, who in this case is Director, CBI, must be forwarded a link to give him an opportunity of proper explanation and also show requisite material declining investigation/
A.R. Antuley vs. R.S. Nayak : AIR 1984 SC 718
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh vs. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196
Muni Lal vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1971 SC 1525
State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others AIR 1992 SC 604
AI
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....
It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of....
Point of law : There is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the....
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.
(1) Offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is a substantive offence.(2) Merely because offence of conspiracy may be involved, investigation into substantive offence which is cognizable is not req....
Section 17A PC Act inapplicable to disproportionate assets cases; previous approval only for offences linked to official recommendations/decisions. Competent authority cannot investigate merits or de....
The consent once given by the State Government in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act of 1946) cannot be thereafter withdrawn and consequently, the investigati....
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.