SUBRATA CHATTORAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a slew of orders in the main Writ Petition and the order dated February 05, 2019 in the Contempt Petition, this Court had sought to allay confrontation and clash between the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'CBI'), a Central Investigating Agency, and the Police Force in the State of West Bengal (for short, 'WBSPF'). With regret, we acknowledge and accept that despite orders and words of advice, antagonism and acrimony has escalated and not ebbed as is evident from the pleading and arguments addressed before us. To avoid prolixity and as limited controversy arises for consideration, we are not referring the earlier orders for the purpose of the present judgment, albeit express our disappointment and dismay seeing the CBI and the WBSPF pitted and casting aspersions against each other and being embroiled in this feud. They have forgotten that the primary purpose and role of the police is to investigate crime, collect evidence and prosecute the offenders. Situation is grim as both sides have hardened their stand and there is no administrative mechanism in place to avoid and resolve such conflicts between the two wings of the police force in the country. At the receiving end are silently waiting lakhs of small town and rural investors who have been deprived and looted of their savings.

(2.) Keeping in view the magnitude, inter-State ramifications, plight of investors, and need for swift and efficient investigation, this Court had, vide judgment dated May 09, 2014 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2013, transferred the chit-fund scam cases registered in different police stations in the States of West Bengal and Odisha from the State Police Agencies to the CBI. This Order had required that the State Police Agencies who were investigating these cases to provide fullest cooperation to the CBI, including assistance in terms of manpower and material, to enable them to conduct and complete the investigation expeditiously.

(3.) The CBI alleges non-cooperation and charges WBSPF with obfuscating the investigation by causing impediments and roadblocks with a view to protect big names and members/leaders of the ruling party in the State of West Bengal. By the interim order dated 15th December, 2017, this Court was constrained to direct that the CBI officers shall not be called by the State Police i.e. WBSPF. The CBI claims having substantial material implicating Mr. Rajeev Kumar, a senior officer of the Indian Police Service, and former Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, and the then Commissioner, Bidhannagar Commissionerate, of connivance and complicity with the principal accused. Notices dated October 18, 2017, October 23, 2017 and December 08, 2018 were issued to Mr. Rajeev Kumar to appear and join investigation, but he did not respond. Compelled, the CBI alleges their officers had made a bona fide visit to Mr. Rajeev Kumar's residence on February 03, 2019 but were prevented from entering and interrogating Mr. Rajiv Kumar by the WBSPF, who in retaliation had laid a seige around the CBI Office at Kolkata. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, who was the day-to-day In-charge of the SIT appointed by the State Government investigating into the chit-fund scam cases, should explain the reason for release of mobile phones and laptop belonging to the accused Ms. Debjani Mukherjee. Further, full and complete call record data has not been provided and the data provided to the CBI was tampered and incomplete. An earlier Investigating Officer, in his statement recorded on September 18, 2018 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Code') had stated that he used to receive instructions from one Mr. Arnab Ghosh, who in turn would receive instructions from Mr. Rajeev Kumar. Diary maintained by the principal accused to record day-to-day transactions, which as per Ms. Debjani Mukherjee was seized by the WBSPF is missing or has for ulterior reasons been withheld from the CBI. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, during his interrogation at Shillong, was arrogant, non-cooperative and ambiguous in his answers, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required.