Point of Law: As per Section 190(1)(a) of Code, any Magistrate of first class, may take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. It follows that when a petition or complaint is filed, which only contains a prayer for sending it to police under Section 156(3) of Code for investigation, it shall necessarily contain facts which constitute a cognizable offence.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the complainant. He is a former police officer. The complaint filed by him was an offshoot of the case which is popularly known as 'ISRO Espionage Case'.

2. The order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, by which it rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner, is challenged in this revision petition.

3. The petitioner had filed the complaint against respondents 3 to 9. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner would be hereinafter referred to also as 'the complainant' and respondents 3 to 9 would be referred to also as 'the accused'.

4. The sum and substance of the averments/allegations in the complaint can be stated as follows :

(i) The complainant was the Special Branch Inspector in Thiruvananthapuram City. On 20.10.1994, he arrested Smt.Mariam Rasheeda, a Maldivian National for overstaying in India. On the basis of his report, Crime No.225/1994 was registered at the Vanchiyoor Police Station under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. Subsequently, he arrested Smt.Fousiya Hassan for committing the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and on 13.11.1994, a case was registered as Crime No.246/1994 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station under Sections 3 and 4 of that Act. Subsequently, the Government of Kerala transferred the investigation of both cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI re-registered Crime No.246/1994 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station as RC.11(S)/94 and conducted the investigation. After the investigation, on 16.04.1996, the CBI submitted a refer report/closure report in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, stating that the allegations of espionage were not proved and found to be false. As per order dated 02.05.1996, this report was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate after rejecting the objection filed by the complainant.

(ii) Respondent No. 8, who was an accused in the above case, filed W.P(C).No.30918 of 2012 before the High Court for initiating action against the erring officers in the investigation of the case. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court. The judgment in the above writ petition was set aside by the High Court in WA.No.1863/2014 and WA.No.1959/2014 filed by Sibi Mathews, and K.K.Joshwa, former police officers. Respondent No.8 filed appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the High Court in the above writ appeals. The Supreme Court constituted a Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of that Court, to find out ways and means to take appropriate steps against the erring officials. The Committee submitted its report dated 25.03.2021 in a sealed cover. The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to forward one copy of the said report to the Director/Acting Director of the CBI to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Based on the above order dated 15.04.2021, the CBI registered a case against the complainant and other persons under Sections 120B,167,218,330,323,195,348,365,477A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) Very close associates of Respondent No.8 provided information to the complainant that Respondent No.8 had bribed the CBI officers who investigated and supervised the investigation of the ISRO case in the year 1994-1998 by conveying property to them. It is revealed from documents that the conveyance of property was effected through the Sub Registrar's Office, Nanguneri in Thirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu in the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 2004 and 2008 by Respondent No.8 and his benami holders. The encumbrance certificates collected and produced by the complainant as Exts.4 to 23 would show transactions of properties by Respondents 3 to 8.

(iv) The documents produced by the complainant, relating to property transactions, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case against Respondents 3 to 8 who were/are public servants under the Go