SHEESH RAM SAINI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Special Police Establishment, commonly known as Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is a special police force constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946). Initially, the said police force was setup by the Central Government for the purpose of investigating offences of bribery and corruption connected with the departments of the Central Government. Having regard to the useful work of this force, its sphere and jurisdiction was extended not only to the offences relating to person and property under the Indian Penal Code and various other statutes committed anywhere within the territory of the country. Over the period, CBI has emerged as one of the premier investigating agencies of the country by virtue of its track record of detecting, investigating and prosecuting some of the most important, complex and intricate criminal cases of the country. The citizens of the country and the courts regard it to be a specialized investigating agency equipped with skilled investigators and most modern and sophisticated infrastructure. In fact, the people look up to CBI for the investigation of most heinous, complex and intricate criminal cases. Hundreds of petitions are filed in various High Courts and the Apex Court seeking entrustment of investigation of criminal cases to CBI on the premises that the investigation carried out by the local police or its specialized wings or other investigating agencies have failed to perform their task in a just fair, proper and impartial manner or these agencies not possessing the requisite skill or having failed to workout the crime and book the offenders. The courts have in umpteen number of cases have allowed such prayers and have entrusted the investigation of criminal cases to CBI by reposing great faith in this organization. The personnel who man this premier organization are either recruited directly or are drawn from various State police forces or Central Police organizations having regard to their impeccable record of work and conduct in those forces/organizations. The personnel of this organization are usually treated in high esteem on account of those qualities and skill and proven record. However, any organization, howsoever high it may be, is after all manned by human beings who are not always infallible. Instances are not rare when the CBI personnel were also caught on wrong foot and their conduct commented upon adversely by the courts. The present case tends to highlight such like conduct of the two officers of CBI which conduct in the reckoning of the petitioner will constitute certain criminal offence(s).

(2.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a direction / writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.1, i.e., the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) to register an FIR against respondent nos.2 and 3 for having committed offences under Sections 218/463/465/469/166/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and to launch prosecution against them in accordance with law. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that the petitioner is employed as an Accountant in the firms and companies of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, having its office at A-56, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina, New Delhi. On 7.12.1999 CBI registered a case RC No.6(E) 99 CBI SIU IX, New Delhi under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Shri Ashok Aggarwal, real brother of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. It is alleged that in connection with the said case, the officials of the CBI had been summoning the petitioner to their office for the purpose of investigation and the petitioner had attended the office of the CBI on about forty occasions and submitted whatever information/record/ documents were asked for by respondent no.2 from him. It is averred that Insp.Vinod Kumar Pandey, a Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police was taken on deputation by CBI and his posting in the CBI was managed by respondent no.3, who was posted as a Joint Director in the CBI. It is alleged that on 26.4.2000 at about 3.45 P.M. respondent no.2 along with Mr.K.C.Joshi and some other officials of the CBI conducted a raid at the company offices at Naraina, being managed by Mr.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal at A-56, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina, New Delhi and in the process, respondent no.2 with the help of other officials, seized several books of accounts and some loose documents which were converted into two bundles. At about 5.00 P.M. the members of raiding party started leaving the premises without giving any proof of the seizure of the record from the petitioner or his employer despite their repeated requests. On 27.4.2000 the petitioner went to the office of the CBI with a view to get the proof in respect of the seizure made by respondent no.2 on the previous day, i.e., on 26.4.2000 at Naraina office and met respondent no.2 and asked him either to return the books of accounts as well as the loose documents converted into two bundles or to render a proof of seizure of the said documents seized on 26.4.2000, but respondent no.2 directed him to wait in his office as he wanted to seek directions from respondent no.3 before issuing or handing over any seizure memo to the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent no.2 went away to meet respondent no.3 and after some time returned to his room and told the petitioner that he would prepare a seizure memo showing the seizure of account books as on 27.4.2000 instead of 26.4.2000 and would mention therein that the books of accounts as well as the loose documents converted into two bundles were seized by him from the petitioner in the office of CBI which meant that respondent no.2 did not want to give any proof of conducting the raid at the Naraina office of the petitioner on 26.4.2000. The petitioner was asked to accept the seizure memo of 27.4.2000 and, if the petitioner was not ready to accept the same, then no proof at all would be given to him either regarding the raid or seizure of record made on 26.4.2000 from the Naraina office. The petitioner, being a layman and without knowing the implications of the contents of the seizure memo, accepted the seizure memo prepared by respondent no.2 in which typed written date 26.4.2000 had been altered to 27.4.2000 by respondent no.2 in his hand-writing. It was, however, noticed by the petitioner that that seizure memo did not find mention of the loose sheets/documents which were converted into two bundles seized by respondent no.2 from the petitioner on 26.4.2000. It is alleged that all this was done by respondent no.2 in conspiracy and in connivance and at the behest of respondent no.3. The petitioner claims to have made several complaints to the officials of the CBI regarding the preparation of false/incorrect documents by respondent no.2, but no action was taken in the matter.

(3.) It is further alleged that after a gap of about six months on 20.10.2000 the petitioner was summoned by respondent no.2 in his office and on reaching there, he was arrested by respondent no.2 in connection with the above case with which the petitioner had no connection as he was simply working as an Accountant in the office managed by Mr.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. Another seizure memo was prepared by respondent no.2 though no record or documents as shown in the said memo were, in fact, seized on that date and the petitioner was compelled to sign the said memo and he was abused and subjected to mis-behaviour by respondent no.2. It is alleged that the documents purportedly shown to have been seized through the seizure memo dated 20.10.2000 had already been seized by respondent no.2. It is alleged that respondents no.2 and 3 have committed the offences of preparation of incorrect/false documents which act falls within the mischief of Sections 218/463/469/166/120-B IPC. Since no action was taken by the CBI authorities, the petitioner made a complaint to the Police Station, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi on 5.7.2001 for registration of a case against respondent nos.2 and 3, but the police declined to register a case primarily on the ground that they had no powers to register a case against the CBI officials, hence, this petition.