9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the officials of the respondent company entered into a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat banks/financial institutions/Govt. exchequer, dishonestly and fraudulently diverted huge amount of bank funds. 3. It is further submitted that the main Investigating Officer Insp. Kapil Dhanked has been investigating other cases and also looking proceedings pending before different Courts including this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. The present case is a high-ticket fraud requiring investigation all over the country. Further, the application in question was moved before the Trial Court seeking permission for SI Amit Kumar to assist Insp. Kapil Dhanked in conducting investigation as the bank documents are stated to be volumi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorised to investigate and it reads as under: 17. Persons authorised to investigate- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank, - (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police establishment, of an Inspector of Police; (b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police; (c) Elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigation shall be made by a police officer of not less than a certain rank, unless specifically empowered by a Magistrate in that behalf, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Criminal Procedure Code, it is clearly implicit therein that the investigation (in the absence of such permission) should be conducted by the officer of the appropriate rank. This is not to say 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 deputies to the extent permitted by the Code to an officer in charge of a police station conducting an investigation or that he is bound to go through each of these steps in every case. When the Legislature has enacted in emphatic terms such a pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to agree with the view of the High Court that there has been any irregularity or illegality in the conduct of the investigation. 10. Recently, in Union of India and Others represented through Superintendent of Police v. T. Nathamuni reported as (2014) 16 SCC 285, where while relying on its earlier decision in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court held as under: 10. In the instant case, the only question that needs to be considered is as to whether the order passed by the Magistrate permitting the Sub-Inspector, CBI, Chennai to investigate the matter can be sustained in law. The only ground taken by the respondent in the quashing petition before the High Court is that as per the provisions of Section 17 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Sub-Inspector, CBI who, after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. It was only during the trial, objection was raised by the respondent that the order passed by the Magistrate permitting Sub-Inspector, CBI to investigate is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the investigation conducted by the officer is vitiated in law. Curiously enough the respondent has not made out a case that by reason of investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector a serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice has been caused. It is well settled that invalidity of investigation does not vitiate the result unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. 11. The Trial Court by passing the impugned order not only failed to appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
