Karnataka High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2717 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ACU-V, NEW DELHI
REP BY ITS
CHIEF INVESTIGATING OFFICER
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CYBER CIRME POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDAKR VEEDHI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP ALONG WITH
Digitally signed by SRI. B.J. ROHITH, HCGP)
SHOBHA C
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
THIS CRIMINAL PETITON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A. EXPUNGE THE REMARKS THAT IS FURTHER,
FROM B REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATION IT DISCLOSES
THAT SOME OF THE A HEAD OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY USING
THEIR POWER AND ACTED AS A RINGMASTER TO FILE FAVOR IN HIS
FAVOUR AND FURTHER IT SHOWS THAT HE DESTROYED THE
EVIDENCE ALSO WITH THE HELP OF HIS SUBORDINATE OFFICER TO
ESCAPE FROM CLUSTER OF LAWS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking expunge of the remarks made by the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Special Court for CBI Cases, Bengaluru in the order on closer report dated 18.10.2021 in Crime No.6963/2019 (R.C.No.217019A0006/2019).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. Learned Special Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was FIR registered by the CBI against unknown accused persons and subsequently, B-final report was filed before the Special Court. While rejecting the B-final report, the Special Court made stringent remarks against investigation officer at paragraph Nos.50, 51 and 52 of its order dated 18.10.2021, which affects the career of officer and the CBI institution.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order passed by the Special Court. -3- CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022
5. Of course, as per the entrustment made by the State Government, an FIR in Crime No.6963/2019 was registered by Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, and investigation was taken by the CBI in respect of trapping of telephone calls of political leaders along with the ruling party and the opposite party. The Investigation Officer filed B-final report by closing investigation stating that there was no evidence. The Special Court dismissed the final report and made observations at paragraphs 50 to 52 of its order, which reads as follows:
Further, in para No.9 of the investigation report discloses that whats app communication between Mirza Ali Raza and Alok Kumar pertaining to transfer of LI calls could not be retrived, since their mobile phone had already been formatted past the incident and CFSL, Hyderabad has given nil report in this regard. But, as stated above, on 02.02.2019, the phone number of Mirza Ali Raza was in good condition and B. Alok Kumar made phone calls to the mobile of Mirza Ali Raza, he send the LI voice calls to Alok Kumar on his whats app thereafter everything was managed through their mobiles as per their whims and fancy. Under the said circumstances, how it is possible to believe that their mobile phone had already been formatted past the incident. It shows that for their convent and also to escape from -4- CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022 the incident they changed it. Further, before the XXI ACMM at the time of giving statement, the Mirza Ali Raza has given statement and he narrated all the facts to the XXI ACMM and the statement given by the Mirza Ali Raza before the I.O. are not similar and the I.O. not taken the statement given by of Mirza Ali Raza before the XXI ACMM for consideration before filing 'B' report. But the statement given by this Mirza Ali Raza, before the I.O., it shows that by apprehending to the higher officer, he given statement against to the real facts. Further, from 'B' report submitted by the investigation, it discloses that some of the a head of the police department by using their power and acted as a ringmaster to file favour report in his favour and further it shows that he destroyed the evidence also with the help of his subordinate officer to escape from clutches of law. This itself is an offence under Section 201 of IPC. But, in the instant case, the I.O., not properly investigated to show who destroyed the evidence, who was responsible for the said act and who are involved in this case and the investigation officer kept the information in darkness. Under the said circumstances, it is necessary to give direction to conduct further investigation properly. If it is properly conducted, real truth will come out and it will help this court to find out the real culprits. Further in para No.11 of the report, he has stated -5- CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022 that Miss. Kushala did not disclose the sourced, where she received the said conversation and how she got the possession of the intercepted audio files as the same is in her exclusive knowledge. Further Miss. Kushala at the time of giving her statement to the I.O. has admitted regarding the information received by her on NEWS 18 on 08.08.2019 but she has stated like this 'I am not liable to disclose such information". Under law all are equal, and, she is not the above the law "If the Miss. Kushala did not disclose the sources it is the duty of the investigation officer to made her as accused or to take action against the Miss Kushala for not disclosing the information received by her on 04.08.2019 through Email, Further not disclosing of information to the investigating officer in respect sources of information is an offence since without the consent of the person concerned she collected information and she telecasted in NEWS 18 on 08.08.2019. She ought to have disclosed the sources from where she received the conversation and how she got the possession of the said interrupted audio files when she telecasted NEWS 18 on 08.08.2019. Further the act of the Miss Kushala shows that she is intentionally not cooperating for investigation and not disclosing the sources to help the real culprits who breached confidentiality. Under the said circumstances, the I.O., ought to have made the said Miss. Kushala as a -6- CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022 accused as stated for not disclosing the sources of information, when it was telecasted on the NEWS 18. From this it is crystal clear that the I.O. has not investigated the matter properly and further investigation is required in this regard.
51. Further, he has stated that the admin CPU (M.No.853/1029/6) on which LI voice calls of Crime No.157/2018 PS Wilson Garden was exported on 02.08.2019 at TSC of Bengaluru City Police along with other exhibits, have been sent to CFSL, Hyderabad vide forwarding letter No.19/3/RC2172019A0006/CBI/ACU-V/New Delhi, Dt. 04.03.2020, for expert opinion regarding the matching of 'hash value' of the impugned intercepted audio files available in the Sony DVD-R (compact Disc) handed over by Miss. S. Kushala marked as (M.No.1106/2019/02) and (Ex-1-DVD0) and others.
The opinion from CFSL is not received. Under the said circumstances, without receiving the CFSL report, he as hurriedly filed the "B" report and it is not accordance with law. It shows that he has not properly investigated the matter.
52. As discussed above, it discloses that some persons invisible hands destroyed the evidence and also it shows that the I.O. has not properly investigated the matter and without investigating the -7- CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022 matter, he submitted "B" report hurriedly to help some higher officer and also to get their blessing with bios. If direction is given for further investigation, truth will come out and it will help this court to arrive a correct conclusion to decide who are the real culprits. So, the "B" report submitted by the I.O. without proper investigation is not sustainable in the eye of law and it is against to principles of natural justice. Under the said circumstances, further investigation is required. Accordingly I answered the point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
6. Considering the facts of the case, of course, the learned counsel for the CBI submits that the matter was taken up by the investigation officer for further investigation and the B-final report which would be filed by the investigation officer will not only looked into by investigation officer but also by the higher officers of CBI and if the remarks are not expunged, the future of the officer will be destroyed.
7. Perusal of the order passed by the Special Court, it is seen that the Special Court at paragraph 50 of the order has observed that from B' report submitted by the investigation officer, it discloses that some of the head of the police -8- CRL.P No. 2717 of 2022 department by using their power and acted as a ring master to file favourable report. At paragraph 51, it is held that without receiving the CFSL report, the investigation officer has hurriedly filed B-final report and it is not in accordance with law and that cannot be expunged. At paragraph 52 of its order, the Special Court has observed that the investigation officer has not properly investigated the matter and without proper investigation, the investigation officer has filed report hurriedly to help the higher officers, which discloses that the Special Court has made unwanted comments in the order. Therefore, the remarks made at paragraphs 50 and 52 is required to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The remarks made at paragraphs 50 and 52 are expunged.
Office is directed to intimate this order to the Special Court, immediately to reverse the remarks in the above said paras from the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65