Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 778 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyJurisdiction - person below the rank of Inspector - Interpretation of statute - Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Rejection of application seeking permission for Sub Inspector Amit Kumar to assist the main Investigating Officer in conducting investigation - fraudulent diversion of huge amount of bank funds - rights and contentions to challenge the entire investigation in appropriate proceedings - whether a person below the rank of Inspector can assist the main Investigating Officer in conducting investigation? - HELD THAT -The provision of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, corresponds to Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which came up for consideration in HN. RISHBUD VERSUS STATE OF DELHI 1954 (12) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT . The Supreme Court after considering the Scheme of Cr.P.C. observed that it was 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. The Trial Court by passing the impugned order not only failed to appreciate the mandate of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988 but also failed in its duty to follow the import of above referred exposition of law. The Special Judge is empowered under Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988 to permit an officer below the requisite rank to assist the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation provided the steps taken by him are under direct supervision of the Investigation Officer who remains in control of the investigation and shall be responsible for all the steps that are taken by the subordinate officer. The present petition is allowed.
Issues:
1. Setting aside the order declining permission for a Sub Inspector to assist the main Investigating Officer. 2. Interpretation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 regarding the rank of officers authorized to investigate. Analysis: 1. The petition sought to set aside an order declining permission for Sub Inspector Amit Kumar to assist the main Investigating Officer in a high-ticket fraud case involving a criminal conspiracy to cheat banks and divert funds. The Special Judge had declined the application citing the main Investigating Officer's workload and ongoing cases. The respondents did not object to the prayer made in the application, highlighting an insolvency resolution process affecting the respondent company. 2. The central issue revolved around whether an officer below the rank of Inspector could assist the main Investigating Officer as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Act specifies the ranks of officers authorized to investigate offenses, emphasizing the need for proper authorization. Previous judgments like H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi and Muni Lal v. Delhi Administration were referenced to interpret the legislative intent behind the provision. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. T. Nathamuni reiterated the importance of adhering to the rank requirements for investigating officers. 3. The court emphasized that while a subordinate officer could assist in investigations, ultimate responsibility and control should remain with the main Investigating Officer. The Trial Court's failure to appreciate the mandate of Section 17 and the legal precedents led to the allowance of the petition. The judgment clarified that the Special Judge could permit a lower-ranked officer to assist in investigations under direct supervision, ensuring the main Investigating Officer retains control and responsibility for all steps taken. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of setting aside the order and interpreting the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 regarding the authorized ranks of investigating officers. The judgment underscores the importance of proper authorization and supervision in complex investigations, as outlined in relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions.
|