DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
11/08/2021
JUDGES:
Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Central Bureau of Investigation
Respondent: Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL) and Others
SUBJECT
The following Judgement deals with the interpretation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, delving into the question of whether a person below the rank of Inspector can assist the main Investigating Officer in conducting an investigation. It was held that the Special Judge is empowered to permit an officer below the requisite rank to assist the Investigating Officer in conducting an investigation, provided it is under the direct supervision of the Investigation Officer.
OVERVIEW
Since April 2019, Bhushan steel and power had been accused of various financial misdealings by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The company was accused of taking a loan of ₹47,000 crores from multiple banks, which later turned into non-profitable assets, followed by multiple frauds. The case was given to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The company was alleged to be involved in a criminal conspiracy of cheating banks, by fraudulently diverting huge amounts of funds.
Since the case involved high-ticket fraud and various entities, there arose a requirement of investigation all over the country. For this purpose, an application was moved before the Trial Court seeking permission for the sub-inspector to assist IO in conducting the investigation as the bank documents were voluminous and the investigation had to be conducted speedily. However, the Trial Court denied such permission. The matter was brought in front of the Delhi High Court.
The High court of Delhi referred to various cases one of which was Union of India represented by Superintendent of Police v. T. Nathamuni reported as (2014) where it was held that order of the Special Judge, obtained by filing an application was passed on request and in the interest of justice and investigation pursuant to such order did not suffer from want of jurisdiction. To invalidate the result of such investigation the respondent must prove a miscarriage of justice. Relying on such decisions, the Delhi high court held that a Special judge has the power under the Corruption Act to grant permission to an officer below the rank of Inspector for assistance to an Investigating Officer.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
It states that Investigation shall be done by a police officer not below the rank of:
- In Delhi, of an Inspector of Police.
- In other metropolitan areas, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police.
- Anywhere else a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an officer of equivalent rank shall investigate any offense punishable under this Act without the order of a Magistrate or make any arrest without a warrant.
If a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorized by the State Government by a general or special order, he may investigate such offense or make an arrest without a warrant.
Section 5(4) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
It states that sections 326 and 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge and, a special Judge shall be deemed to be a Magistrate.
Section 482 of CrPC
It mentions no limitation on the powers of the High Court or affects its inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
It states Punishment of criminal conspiracy. According to the section, whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years.
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
It states that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment of not less than one year extendable to seven years and a fine.
ISSUE
- Whether a person below the rank of Inspector could assist the main Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation.
ANALYSIS
An investigation is one of the most vital pieces of any criminal proceeding. In the present case, the court took cognizance of the fact that the investigation conducted involved documents that are voluminous and that the investigation is to be carried out all over India, for which the Inspector seeks assistance.
The court analyzed Section 17 (Persons authorized to investigate) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in HN Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, where after considering the provisions of criminal procedure, it was held that it is permissible for an officer in charge of a Police Station to get the investigation conducted from a subordinate officer provided that the responsibility of all such steps remains with the officer in charge of Police Station and that the subordinate officer reports all the steps taken by him to the officer in charge.
Similarly, the court referred to the case of Muni Lal v. Delhi Administration which held that though it is clearly mentioned in Section 5 that the investigation should be conducted by the officer of the appropriate rank, it is not absolutely necessary that every one of the steps in the investigation has to be done by him in person or that he cannot take the assistance of his deputies or that he is bound to go through each and every one of the steps in the investigation in every case.
It is evident from the above cases that the general ruling of the court has been that while conducting an investigation, one cannot be expected to go through each of the steps in person and may take the assistance of deputies when required to the extent permitted by the code. To invalidate the result of such investigation the respondent must prove a miscarriage of justice. If the respondent has not made out a case that by reason of investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector a serious prejudice has occurred then it cannot invalidate the result of such investigation.
CONCLUSION
Keeping in view the earlier decisions the court held that the trial court had failed to appreciate the mandate of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988, and the special judge was empowered under Section 17 to permit an officer below the requisite rank to assist the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation mandating ultimate responsibility of the investigating officer for all the steps taken by a subordinate under his direct supervision. The investigating officer remains in control of the investigation and shall be responsible for all actions of the subordinate.
To minimize the difficulties in the process of a criminal investigation, it requires a holistic approach that recognizes the issues and problems of police work in its wider organizational and societal contexts thereby formulating meaningful schemes to significantly alter the practice of police investigation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
