LAWS(KER)-2018-12-122

MOHAMMAD ENAMUL HAQUE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Decided On December 05, 2018
Mohammad Enamul Haque Appellant
V/S
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in a crime of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'the CBI), Kochi registered as RC 1(A)/2018/CBI/ACB/ Cochin. The 1st accused in the crime is a BSF Commandant. A huge amount of ?50 lakhs was seized from the possession of the 1st accused in suspicious circumstances by a CBI official. On the basis of the said seizure and arrest, the present crime was registered. On the basis of the statements given by the 1st accused, the petitioner herein was arraigned as

(2.) nd accused, on the allegation that the huge amount seized from the possession of the 1st accused was in fact paid as bribe by this petitioner. Thus the petitioner is said to be the person, who paid illegal gratification to the 1st accused, who is a public servant. During the investigation process, the CBI froze 26 bank accounts of the petitioner, including his personal and business accounts. Annexure-D report submitted by the CBI official contains the details of the bank accounts of the two accused frozen by the CBI. Finding it difficult to carry on his daily transactions, the petitioner approached the Special Court (SPE-CBI) Thiruvananthapuram, with Crl.MP 101/2018 for a direction to de- freeze some of the accounts. When the said application came up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the CBI endorsed no objection, and accordingly, the learned trial Judge passed orders on 7.7.2018 defreezing three bank accounts of the petitioner. Later, the CBI submitted a report in court containing a request to freeze those accounts again. The said request was filed as Crl.M.P. 134/2018. The CBI sought orders freezing those accounts again on the ground that the bank accounts including the three accounts de-frozen by orders of the court will have to be subjected to forensic auditing as part of investigation. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge allowed the said application on 12.9.2018, and accordingly those three accounts were again frozen. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. His prayer is to set aside the impugned order of the trial court, and also to allow him to operate all the 26 accounts, including the three accounts covered by the impugned order. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Solicitor General of India representing the CBI were heard in detail on the issue. On a perusal of the objection filed by the CBI in the court below, and also the petition in Crl.M.P.134/2018, I find that the CBI made the application before the court below on the ground that all the accounts of the petitioner will have to be subjected to forensic auditing. No doubt, a bank account can be subjected to auditing or forensic auditing even without being frozen.

(3.) As regards the power of the court to interfere in the process of investigation, there cannot be any doubt or dispute. It is well settled that investigation is the exclusive domain of the investigating agency, where the courts will not in normal circumstances interfere or intrude into. I need not refer to the various decisions cited at the Bar, because it is the settled position. It is also settled that in exceptional circumstances where, the court finds illegalities in the process of investigation, or illegal arbitrariness in the discharge of functions as part of investigation, the courts cannot be a mute onlooker, and the courts will have to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Regarding this settled position also, nobody can have any doubt or dispute.