Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9) As could be seen from the Government Order dated 19.03.1996 under which BMTF was constituted, it is clear that BMTF was constituted as a field unit under the Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, for the prevention, detection and investigation of offences and prosecutions in respect of the property belonging to the Government and other organizations and for the purpose of detection of commission or any design for committing any offence as well as investigation and prosecution of such offence relating to unauthorized occupation of any land which is an offence under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1978, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 and Karnataka Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 only, as such, the BMTF was not constituted as a police station in terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., therefore, BMTF had no jurisdiction to register and investigate the case which does not relate to unauthorized occupation of any land belonging to the aforesaid authorities and which is not an offence under any of the enactments stated in the notification. Therefore, the very registration of the case by BMTF was without jurisdiction and authority of law; that though by notification dated 27.05.1996, the BMTF was authorized to investigate into some of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, those offences could not have investigated by BMTF independently unless the acts complained constitutes offence under any of the enactments mentioned in the earlier notification. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Dr. S.M. Kalligudd and others Vs. State of Karnataka [1998(1) KLJ 252]; that since in the case on hand, the acts alleged in the FIR did not constitute offence under any of the aforesaid enactments, BMTF had no jurisdiction to register the case for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code; that in view of the fact that offence under KTPP Act is not the one enumerated in the notification constituting BMTF, BMTF had no jurisdiction to register the case for any of the offence under KTPP Act, as such, registration of the case by BMTF was without jurisdiction; that though by subsequent notification, BMTF has been declared as Police Station in terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., having regard to the object and purpose for which BMTF was constituted, it cannot be construed as a Police Station in general terms, but it is a police station for a specific purpose having limited jurisdiction; that this position has been made amply clear in the latest Government Order dated 02.02.2013 followed by Government Notification dated 06.02.2013; that in view of the fact that initial registration of the case by BMTF itself was without jurisdiction, transfer of investigation to CID would not validate the registration of the case, as such, CID had no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter; that tenor of the Government Orders, under which the investigation was transferred to CID, indicates that the Government intend to have only an enquiry and to secure report as to the various allegations for the purpose of taking further action in the matter and the Government never intended CID to file a charge sheet against any officials or non- officials, therefore, the charge sheets filed by CID are without jurisdiction and authority of law; that assuming for the purpose of argument that CID had jurisdiction to investigate and file a final report into the court, in view of the fact that only one crime case had been registered, one final report ought to have been filed, whereas, CID has filed multiple charge sheets, therefore the multiple charge sheets filed are without jurisdiction; that as could be seen from the allegations made in the charge sheets, it is clear that the alleged offences have been committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties, as such, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is a condition precedent for the court to take cognizance and since no such sanction has been accorded by the competent authority, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and therefore, the order taking cognizance is without jurisdiction.

10) Countering the above arguments, learned Advocate General contended as under:-

Though initially BMTF was constituted as a 'Field Unit' for the purpose of detection and prevention of unauthorized occupation of any property belonging to the Government or other authorities enumerated in the notification dated 19.03.1996 and was empowered to investigate and launch prosecution in respect of any commission or design for committing any offences under the enactments specified therein, subsequently the Government declared the BMTF as a 'Police Station' in terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. and was also authorized to investigate the offences and launch prosecution for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, therefore, BMTF had jurisdiction and authority to register the case in Crime No.4/2011 on the basis of the report lodged by the Additional Commissioner of BBMP, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in registering the aforesaid case; that Government in exercise of its power of superintendence on the Police Force in the State has the power to transfer the investigation to a Specialized Agency and in exercise of such power, the Government ordered transfer of investigation in Crime No.4/2011 registered by BMTF to CID. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in Government ordering transfer of the investigation to CID. The decision of this Court in Dr. S.M. Kalligudd's case referred to supra is not applicable to the cases on hand in the light of the subsequent notifications declaring BMTF as a 'Police Station' under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. and also empowering BMTF to investigate and launch prosecutions in respect of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Narasimhaiah Vs. State by Inspector of Police, H & B Squad, COD, Bangalore and another [2002 Crl.L.J. 4795]. There is absolutely no circumstance brought-out on record by any of the petitioners to indicate that the order transferring the investigation to CID is a colorable exercise of the power by the Government; that once the investigation was entrusted to CID it has all powers of investigation and forming an opinion, based on which it has the power to submit a report under Section173(2) of Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional court and the direction contained in the Government Order to CID to submit their report to the Government is only the status report and not a final report as contemplated under Section173(2) of Cr.P.C. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Todi Vs. Kishwar Jahan and others [(2011) 3 SCC 758]; that the clarificatory notification dated 02.02.2013 issued by the Government and the observations made by the Division Bench in its order dated 23.07.2013 passed in the Public Interest Litigation filed in Writ Petition Nos. 12381-12382/2013 have no application to the case on hand, since much prior to the notification dated 02.02.2013, the case in Crime No.4/2011 had been registered and investigation had been transferred to CID.

Sanction is accorded to constitute a force to be called the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) A Deputy Inspector General of Police shall be the head of the task force with the designation " The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force". The command, supervision and administration shall vest in the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Task Force.

The functions of the task force shall be as follows, namely: Better protection of the property belonging to the Government, the Bangalore City Corporation, the Bangalore Development Authority, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the City Municipal Council the Slum Clearance Board in Bangalore. The Detection of commission of any design of committing any offence, of investigation and prosecution of such offence relating to unauthorized occupation of any land which is an offence under the following enactment.

13) As could be seen from the functions of the Task Force, the said Force was constituted for the purpose of better protection of the property belonging to the Government and other local authorities and in that regard, it was empowered to detect commission or any design for committing of any offence and in that regard undertake investigation into unauthorized occupation of public property belonging to Government or to any other authorities enumerated therein, which constitutes an offence under the enactments referred to therein and to launch prosecution against any such persons in respect of such offences. Thus, from the aforesaid notification, it is clear that BMTF was constituted as a Force for a specific purpose and to function in a specific area. In other words, it was not competent to register any case or investigate into any offences under any other law except the offences relating to unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to the Government or other authorities enumerated in the notification.