2024 (5) TMI 1264 - HC - Indian Laws

Public servant case: Further investigation denied after five years, HC finds CBI application vague under Section 173 CrPC

Ashok Kumar Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The HC set aside a trial court order permitting further investigation in a case involving a public servant accused of abusing official position to earn ... Allegation against Public servant abusing his official position earned huge amount and the same were deposited in bank accounts opened in the name of certain non-existent/non functional companies/firm registered and in the name of his family members - Acceptance of the Final Report u/s 173 CrPC by the trial court - Discharge the accused - Scope of the directions of CVC - Application for further investigation by CBI after 5years - petitioner’s case is that he is a member of Indian Revenue Services, and is presently posted as the Commissioner of Income Tax - HELD THAT:- It appears that the prayer dated 24.06.2019 for further investigation was made by the CBI on the basis of CVC’s report dated 31.01.2014 (as no other report by the CVC has been placed before this Court), but the CVC’s recommendation in the said report is only for departmental action for major penalty. There is no other recommendation, more so reason/nor recommendation/or grounds for further investigation. As to what prompted the CBI to pray for further investigation after five years of the CVC’s said report, was not considered by the trial Judge. Paragraph 8 of the application for further investigation dated 24.06.2019 filed by the CBI is vague and clearly not as per the CVC’s report dated 31.01.2014. In the application dated 24.06.2019, the grounds for further investigation in paragraph 9 also relate to the initial investigation which ended in FRT, wherein the same points were investigated but no evidence was found to substantiate the allegation in the FIR. No new evidence or material was placed before the trial Judge to justify allowing the prayer for further investigation. The order dated 27.06.2019 (certified copy) permitting further investigation does not give any reasons/grounds as to why such a prayer is being allowed, which is clearly an abuse of the process of law and thus against the principles of interest of justice. It is unfortunate that now after almost 5 (five) years, the status report dated 20.11.2023 filed by the CBI, shows that the further investigation has not led to any fruitful result. Be that as it may, in the present case, Order dated 27.06.19 permitting further investigation is by itself not in accordance with law, as the prayer for further investigation is beyond the report/recommendation of the CVC on which the prayer for further investigation was allegedly based. CRR 459 of 2020 is thus allowed. The Order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Learned Judge Court, Calcutta dated 25.11.2010 thereby granting liberty to the prosecution to conduct further investigation, is set aside/quashed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Order dated 27.06.2019 permitting further investigation.2. Adequacy of evidence for prosecution.3. Compliance with procedural requirements for further investigation.Summary:1. Validity of the Order dated 27.06.2019 permitting further investigation:The High Court examined the legality of the Order dated 27.06.2019, which granted liberty to the prosecution to conduct further investigation. The court found that the application for further investigation was based on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) report dated 31.01.2014. However, the CVC's recommendation was limited to departmental action for a major penalty and did not suggest further investigation. The court noted that the trial Judge did not consider what prompted the CBI to seek further investigation after five years of the CVC's report. The application for further investigation was deemed vague and not aligned with the CVC's report. Consequently, the order permitting further investigation was set aside as it was considered an abuse of the process of law and against the principles of justice.2. Adequacy of evidence for prosecution:The initial investigation by the CBI concluded with a Final Report/Closure Report dated 29.12.2013, which stated that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the allegations of disproportionate assets against the petitioner. The CBI recommended no prosecution due to the lack of direct and conclusive evidence. The trial Judge accepted this report and discharged the accused. Despite the CVC's observations on benami properties, bank accounts, shell companies, and shares, the investigation did not yield new evidence to justify further investigation. The High Court emphasized that no new material was presented to justify reopening the case.3. Compliance with procedural requirements for further investigation:The court highlighted that the application for further investigation did not provide specific reasons or new evidence to support the need for further investigation. The status report submitted by the CBI on 20.11.2023 indicated that the further investigation had not led to any fruitful results. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that further investigation should be based on new material or evidence and should ensure a fair and just investigation. The lack of new evidence and the vague nature of the application led the court to conclude that the order permitting further investigation was not in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the Order dated 27.06.2019, which permitted further investigation. The court directed that all connected applications, if any, stand disposed of, and any interim orders be vacated. The judgment was to be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.