Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14417
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THOMAS DANIEL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 901 2023
C.S.MANU, DILU JOSEPH, C.A.ANUPAMAN, T.B.SIVAPRASAD, C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR, MANJU, E.R.ANANDHU, SATHEESH PAUL, JOSE ALINT JOSEPH, MANU S., P.NARAYANAN, SMT SREEJA V.
The CBI requires consent from the state where the offenses occurred for investigation, reaffirming jurisdictional limits under the BUDS Act.
Headnote:
Investigation - Writ Petition - BUDS Act Section 30, DSPE Act Section 6 - The court found the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lacked the jurisdiction to investigate complaints from depositors in Karnataka without state consent, which influenced the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a CBI case related to complaints against Popular Finance, sought mandamus for the CBI to investigate complaints from depositors outside Kerala. They argued that the CBI's inaction violated a prior court judgment directing the investigation.
Issues: Whether the CBI could investigate complaints from Karnataka without the state government's consent and if the writ petition was maintainable considering jurisdiction issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the BUDS Act stipulates that investigations must consider local jurisdiction and require consent from the respective state authorities for cases lying outside Kerala.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition (criminal) is filed with the following prayers:-
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation, SIT, Cochin to takeover and investigate the complaints lodged against M/s Popular Finance, Vakayar PO, Konni Village ,Konni Taluk , Pathanamthitta District ,PIN- 689698 and its allied firms/concerns, by the depositors outside Kerala as well in terms of Ext. P- 1-judgment including the FIRs registered in the State of Karnataka on the basis of such complaints.
ii. Allow cost of the petition to the petitioner iii. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” (SIC)
2. The petitioners are the accused in a case registered by the CBI under Crime No.RC 1(E)/CBI/SIT/Cochin 2021 following the directions from this Court as per Ext.P1 common judgment dated 23.11.2020. it is submitted that, as per Ext.P1 judgment, this Court entrusted the investigation of the entire cases relating to Popular Finance to the CBI as there are several branches of Popular Finance in and outside the State of Kerala. It is also submitted that, relying Section 30 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act , 2019, this Court ordered CBI investigation. It is the case of the petitioners that, however despite this Court order, the CBI has not been investigating complaints from depositors outside Kerala leading to FIRs being registered in various Police stations in Karnataka. Therefore, omission or inaction of the CBI to investigate the complaints lodged by the depositors outside Kerala is violation of Ext.P1 judgement is the submission. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Kochi. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:-
i) The 66 cases listed by the petitioners in page No.9 to 18 of the petition are filed by the depositors of Karnataka in various Police Stations of Karnataka according to the local jurisdiction of the respective Police Stations. None of the depositors who are the de-facto complainants in the cases are arrayed as respondents in the petition. They are necessary party to this proceedings and without hearing the complainants, legally no order can be passed in the case. Similarly, the competent authority notified by Government of Karnataka which is the appropriate Government is also not made as a party in the petition. Under this circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed as non jointer of necessary parties.
ii) The entire cases listed by the petitioners are arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of respective Police Stations in Karnataka. On perusal of jurisdiction and powers of competent authority and designated Court u/s 7 and 8 of the BUDS Act, it is clear that only the authorities of the respective States can exercise jurisdiction under the BUDS Act. The "appropriate Government in the cases listed by the petitioners is Government of Karnataka and not Government of Kerala.
iii)For investigation of a case which happened in the territorial limit of State of Karnataka, CBI needs consent u/s 6 of DSPE Act u/s 30 of the BUDS Act from state of Karnataka. In the case in hand, no consent was given by Karnataka Government u/s 6 of DSPE Act. Further, as per Sec 30 (1) of BUDS Act, the competent authority notified by the State of Karnataka has to
