Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: crpc section 93 in Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 10 February, 2016Matching Fragments
At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2-accused Rajendra Kumar has been added as proforma respondent, so no notice was issued to him.
2. The facts enumerated from the record are that on the basis of source information, the FIR of the present case was registered on 14.12.2015 against accused Rajendra Kumar and other co-accused persons. The allegations levelled are that the accused Rajendra Kumar while working in different capacities in Delhi Government, promoted and illegally facilitated M/s Endeavour System Pvt. Ltd. by misusing his official position as public servant and also facilitated tenders to the said firm through ICSIL. After registration of FIR in question, an application under Section 93 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner before the Court below for issuance of search warrant. The application was allowed and search warrant was issued allowing the petitioner to search the premises as mentioned in the application. On 15.12.2015, the petitioner conducted searches at various places including the office of accused Rajendra Kumar and seized various incriminating documents. On 21.12.2015, execution report was filed before the Court with the request to allow the retention of seized documents. An application was filed by the respondent no.1 before the Court for release of documents seized by CBI on the ground that the same were not required for investigation. Notice of the said application was issued to the petitioner. During pendency of the said application, respondent no.1 requested that the petitioner should provide copies of the seized files to them. Photocopies of all the seized files were provided to the respondent no.1. On 20.01.2016, the Court below directed the petitioner to release the original documents to the respondent no.1 as mentioned in para 8 of the application.
4. I have heard the learned ASG for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1. I have meticulously gone through their arguments as well as material available on record.
5. The admitted position is that the FIR in the present case was registered on 14.12.2015 under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against accused Rajendra Kumar and others. An application under Section 93 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner on 14.12.2015 before the Court for issuance of search warrants. The Court vide order dated 14.12.2015 issued the search warrants and directed the petitioner to file the compliance report. In pursuance of the search warrants, the search was conducted on 15.12.2015 as per search list.
27. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1, in the facts and circumstances stated above, does not appear to be cogent inasmuch as moving the application under Section 93 Cr.P.C. for issuance of search warrants is part of the investigation and does not curtail the power to conduct the investigation by the Investigating Officer. The investigation was being conducted against accused Rajendra Kumar who at the time of search was working as Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Delhi. Thus, asking for the relevancy of the documents by moving the application for the release of original documents is neither justifiable nor desirable at the initial stage of investigation as it could hamper the investigation in the matter. More the reason, the respondent no.1 has no connection with the accusation against accused Rajendra Kumar. Section 93 Cr.P.C. is meant to facilitate the investigation and is not meant to over shadow the scope of investigation and the details of documents given in the application or annexure thereto does not curtail the scope of investigation. Thus, the raising of plea to curtail the investigation is not sustainable.
28. This Court is of the considered view that the moving of the application under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. for issuance of search warrant does not curtail the scope of the investigation into the allegations and for considering the other factors for the purpose of investigation.
Mere mentioning of the period of offence does not curtail the power of the Investigating Officer to seize the documents subsequent to the same as it was in the continuation of the material required for the investigation during subsequent period also. More the reason that item no.10 of the annexure to the application under Section 93 Cr.P.C. says "Any other documents relevant to the case". Thus, the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 that the Investigating Officer was required to stick to the documents mentioned in annexure to the application only and cannot enlarge the scope of seizure of the documents for the purpose of investigation, does not appear to have any force.