[Citation : 2009(3) RLW 2240 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. Vs. C.B.I. (Sinha, J.)
HON'BLE S.B. SINHA, J.
HON'BLE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.
Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr.
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1133-1134 of 2009, decided on 07.07.2009
Appeals dismissed.
na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 167¼2½( ekuo vax izR;kjksi.k vf/kfu;e] 1994] /kkjk 22 & ,sls ekeys esa na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 167¼2½ dk mi;kstu tgka 1994 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22 ds rgr laKku fy;k x;k gks & 1994 ds vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr laKku dsoy fu/kkZfjr izkf/kdkjh }kjk nk;j ifjokn ij gh fy;k tk ldrk gS ;k l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk lE;d~ :i ls vf/kd`r O;fDr }kjk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vUos"k.k iw.kZ gksus ij vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dsoy ifjokn gh nk;j dj ldrk Fkk vkSj u fd iqfyl fjiksVZ tks 1994 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22 esa vUrfoZ"V foks"k izko/kkuksa dks j[kus gsrq dk;Zokgh ds vuqØe dk vkJ; ys ldrk Fkk & bl ekeys esa lafgrk dh /kkjk 167¼2½ ykxw ugha gksxhA vihy [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 20] 21] 24] 27½
Hon'ble SINHA, J.— Leave granted.
2. Applicability of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) in a case where cognizance has been taken under Section 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (for short “TOHO”) on a complaint filed by the respondent herein is the question involved in this appeal.
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 29.01.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 1007 and 1006 of 2008.
3. Appellants are medical practitioners. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against them under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18 and 19 of TOHO at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the respondent herein.
It registered another FIR on or about 8.02.2008 under Sections 420, 342, 326, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 18 and 19 of TOHO.
4. Appellant No. 2 was arrested on 10.02.2008 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 11.02.2008, whereas appellant No.1 surrendered on 17.02.2008 and produced before the learned Magistrate on 18.02.2008.
5. Respondent filed a complaint under Section 22 of TOHO before the Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Ambala inter alia stating:
“51. That required authorization u/s 22 of TOHO Act 1994 has been accorded by the Govt. of Haryana vide order dated 11.4.08 in favour of undersigned IO of the case….
52. That as per provisions contained in TOHO Act, 1994, cognizance for the offences punishable under the provision of said Act can only be taken up on a complaint filed by prescribed authority or by a person duly authorized by competent authority. Ms. Firoza Mehrotra, Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana, Home Department being the competent authority has authorized the undersigned IO of this case to file the complaint for the violation of provisions of TOHO Act, 1994 by the said accused persons before a competent court of law. Since offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code committed by above said accused persons are pursuant to a criminal conspiracy in the same transaction, hence a composite complaint is being filed against all the said accused persons.”
It was prayed:
“54. It is most respectfully prayed that cognizance under sections 120-B r/w 326, 342, 417, 465, 473, 506 and 307 IPC and Sec. 18, 19 & 20 of Transplanation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and substantive offences thereof may kindly be taken against accused A-1 to A-9 and they may be tried as per law. It is also prayed that permission to conduct further investigation against the arrested persons, namely, Smt. Pooja Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Harpal may kindly be given as also against the others whose names have emerged during investigation.”
6. Inter alia, contending that the period of 90 days from the date of detention expired on 7.05.2008, the appellant No. 2 filed application for grant of bail. By reason of an order dated 9.05.2008, the learned Magistrate opined:
“…For the purposes of taking cognizance of the offences punishable under TOHO Act, a written complaint is required to be filed by the competent authority or the authorized person as required by Section 22 of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, qua the offences under TOHO Act, it seems to be a complaint, but in the opinion of this Court qua the offences committed by the accused punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 307, 326, 342, 417, 465, 473 and 506 of IPC, it seems to be police report. If period of custody is reckoned of both accused Ms. Linda and Dr. Amit, then it appears to me that this police report had been filed within the period of 90 days being filed on 29.4.2008…”
On the said reasoning, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application.
7. The appellant No. 2 along with other accused also filed application for grant of bail, which was also dismissed by the learne
Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. ((1997) 8 SCC 476 = RLW 1997(3) SC 364) 22
Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI ((2007) 8 SCC 770) 22
Sanjay Dutt vs. State Through C.B.I.
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2009(7) SCALE 559) 26
Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1970 SC 940) 28
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.