@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.@mdashHeard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against him including the order dated 14/06/2005, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 17 (A)/91 (R), whereby the petition for discharge of the petitioner was rejected by the Special Judge.
3. A first information report was registered by the CBI against the petitioner, who was posted as Revenue Inspector in Area No. VI in B.C.C.L., Dhanbad. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on telephonic information to the effect that the petitioner was demanding Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from one Suresh Rawani for processing his case for employment in the B.C.C.L, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi, directed Sri D.B. Singh, Inspector, C.B.I., Ranchi, to constitute a Team and to take necessary legal action against the accused P.K. Jha, the petitioner herein. In the Office of the C.B.I. at Dhanbad the complainant Suresh Rawani told that the petitioner was demanding Rs. 1000/- as bribe for processing his case for employment in B.C.C.L.. Accordingly, Sri D.B. Singh, Inspector, C.B.I., Ranchi constituted a Team and arrange a trap. The complainant was given 10 numbers of 100 rupee G.C. Notes with an instruction that on demand, the said currency notes be given to the accused P.K. Jha. Subsequently, when the complainant went to the office of the petitioner and on his demand the aforesaid currency notes were given to him, in the meantime, the C.B.I. Officers/trap team reached there, caught hold the petitioner red handed, which was witnessed by the other witnesses present there. The whole proceeding was recorded in the form of memorandum, which was signed by the witnesses and the petitioner was apprehended by the C.B.I.
4. After investigation, the C.B.I. submitted charge sheet against the petitioner u/s 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the basis of which the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, C.B.I., for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner.
Subsequently, a petition was filed before the Special Judge, C.B.I. on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge. The learned Special Judge by the impugned order dated 14/06/2005, rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present application.
5. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in B.C.C.L. on 01/08/1972 as Revenue Inspector in the Estate Department and he was discharging his duty efficiently and honestly. No file of the petitioner regarding his employment in B.C.C.L. under land looser scheme was pending either on 23/08/1991 or on 27/08/1991 and, therefore, he cannot be said to be involved in the so called processing of the file of the complainant Suresh Rawani and there was no occasion for him to meet the complainant on 23/08/1991 for such employment under land looser scheme in B.C.C.L.
Further case of the petitioner is that since there was no file of the complainant was pending before him and, as such, the question of processing for the employment of the complainant under land looser scheme did not arise as the said scheme was already withdrawn by the B.C.C.L. Headquarter on 25/04/1991 and, therefore, the allegations against him was absolutely false and fabricated.
6. In the main petition for quashing, the petitioner has mainly raised the point that there is no material on record to frame charge against the petitioner but by filing two supplementary affidavits two other points have been raised by the petitioner. Firstly, that the office of the C.B.I. at Dhanbad and the office of the C.B.I. at Ranchi have separate territorial jurisdiction. In other words the office of the C.B.I., Ranchi, which registered the F.I.R. had no power or jurisdiction to register the same since the cause of his action, if any, arose within the jurisdiction of the office of C.B.I. situated at Dhanbad and, therefore, the investigation made by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Ranchi, was illegal and without jurisdiction.
The second point, which has been raised, is that the Inspector of C.B.I. Sri D.B. Singh, constituted a Team to take necessary action against the petitioner P.K. Jha. He lead the trap team, prepared the trap memorandum, registered the F.I.R. and he himself investigated the case also, therefore, he being the informant could not have investigated the case himself therefore, the whole investigation made by him is illegal. Reliance has been placed in the case of
7. Now, I shall consider the points, raised by the petitioner one by one. The first point raised is that there is no any material on the record to frame charge against the petitioner. I find that the learned Special Judge has very elaborately dealt with and discussed in detail the materials on record against the petitioner for framing of charge. The impugned order of the learned Special Judge speaks for itself. At this stage, this Court is not required to go into the truthfulness of reliability of the evidence collected by the investigating agency. The reliability, truthfulness of the evidence, collected during investigation, have to be scrutinized and judged by the trial court at an appropriate stage. From the impugned order, I definitely find that there were sufficient materials on the record before the Special Judge against the petitioner warranting framing of charge. Therefore, the first contention of the petitioner is rejected.
8. So far as the second point with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the office of the C.B.I., Ranchi is concerned, in course of argument Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. produced before me a copy of the order of the Government of India, Department of Personnel & A.R., Central Bureau of Investigation, Legal Division, New Delhi, empowering the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment attached to Ranchi Branch to take up investigation of the case involving the offence notified by the Central Government in the State of Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh with special emphasis in connection with the matters concerning Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises. The aforesaid Government''s Order is quoted herein below:
No. 4/2/81 LD
Government of India,
Department of Personnel & A.R.,
Central Bureau of Investigation
Legal Division ::: Sardar Patel Bhawan Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
Dated 9th June, 1983
ORDER
Subject:- Powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment attached to Ranchi Branch.
In exercise of the powers conferred on me for the Administration of the Delhi Special Police Establishment and in supersession of the previous order No. 4/3/68-LD dated the 21st November, 1972, I, J.S. BAWA, Inspector General of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment, New Delhi do hereby direct that the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment attached to Ranchi Branch shall lake up investigation of cases involving offences [notified by the Central Government u/s 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946)] committed in the States of Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh with special emphasis in connection with the matters concerning Public Sector Undertakings/enterprises as specified in the list annexed hereto and their successors and subsidiaries as well.
Sd/-
(J.S. BAWA)
Inspector General of Police,
Delhi Special Police Establishment,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
New Delhi
Incl. : As above.
Copy to:
1. All Officers of CBI, Head Office, New Delhi
2. The DIG, CBI, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras
3. All Supdts. of Police, CBI Branches.
4. All Crimes Sections in Head Officer/CBI
5. Policy and Organization Division, CBI
6. Department of Personnel & A.R. (AVD), New Delhi
7. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi
8. Chief Vigilance Officers of concerned Ministries/Departments.
9. Ministry of Steel & Mines (Deptt. off Steel) New Delhi
10. Ministry of Steel & Mines (Deptt. Of Mines) New Delhi.
11. Ministry of Industry (Deptt. of Heavy Industry) New Delhi.
12. Ministry of Industry (Deptt. of Industrial Development) New Delhi.
13. Ministry of Energy (Deptt. of Power) New Delhi
14. Ministry of Energy (Deptt. of Coal)
15. Ministry of Commerce
16. Ministry of Defence
17. Ministry of Science & Technology, Space and Atomic Energy., (Deptt. of Atomic Energy)
18. Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals & fertilizers (Deptt. of Chemical and Fertilizers)
19. Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals & fertilizers (Deptt. of Petroleum)
20. Accountant General, Bihar, Ranchi
21. Guard File in CBI (H.O.)
In view of this clear Government''s Order, the point regarding territorial jurisdiction of the office of the C.B.I., Ranchi, raised by the petitioner has no legs to stand and, as such, the same is rejected.
9. The last point raised by the petitioner with regard to impartiality and fairness of the investigation by the Inspector, C.B.I. Mr. D.B. Singh is concerned; it appears from opening lines of the FIR in question that Mr. D.B. Singh, Inspector, C.B.I. lodged the complaint on the order of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. In C.B.I. cases the station house officer is the Superintendent of Police and the Dy. S.P., Inspector and below are subordinate to him, who assist him in investigation of the cases. The Inspector C.B.I. Mr. D.B. Singh registered the case and investigated the same as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police and as per authorization given to him and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the C.B.I. Inspector Mr. D.B. Singh was the complainant and he himself investigated the case is not correct and is against the factual position. However, the petitioner has not shown as to in what way and in what manner he has been prejudiced by the investigation conducted by Mr. D.B. Singh, the Inspector of C.B.I. on the orders of his superior Superintendent of Police, who registered the case.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of
In the said case the Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which on receiving information that the accused was indulging in corrupt practices by extracting money from the drivers and owners of the motor vehicles while conducting check of the vehicles and making use of certain bogus notice forms in the process, Inspector of Police (Vigilance & Anti Corruption), Tiruchirapalli prepared the first information report and registered the crime under Sections 420 and 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He thereafter, proceeded to take up investigation, gathered information, examined the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet in the Court. The accused moved the High Court for quashing of the said proceeding on the ground that the investigation made by the very same police officer, who registered the case can cause prejudice to the accused. The High Court quashed the proceeding on the aforesaid ground. The Apex Court reversed the judgment of the High Court by holding as follows in Para- 4 and 6 of the judgment, which are quoted herein below:
4. There is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which precluded the appellant from taking up the investigation. The fact that the said police officer prepared the FIR on the basis of the information received by him and registered the suspected crime does not disqualify him from taking up the investigation of the cognizable offence. A suo motu move on the part of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence impelled by the information received from some sources is not outside the purview of the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the Code.
6. There is no principle and binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer. The question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition, in the manner in which it has been done by the High Court, that whenever a police officer proceeds to investigate after registering the FIR on his own, the investigation would necessarily be unfair or biased.
11. This decision of the Supreme Court was subsequently, followed in toe case of
12. Therefore, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
In view of the discussions and findings above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
