HARI NARAYAN RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 167(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further for a direction to the Special Court to grant bail to the petitioner under the provision of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It appears that on the basis of complaint from one Shri Kumar Vinod, a vigilance case was registered by the Vigilance Department being Vigilance Case No. 26 of 2008 corresponding to Special Case No. 32 of 2008 for contravention of Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and others. On the basis of the said complaint, the Director of Vigilance has drawn up an Enforcement Case being ECIR No. ECIR/01/PAT/09/AD against the petitioner and others under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Addl. Judicial Commissioner (Special Court), Ranchi. It appears that the abovementioned case under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was lodged on 4.9.2009 by the Assistant Director-II, the Directorate of Enforcement and he took up the investigation as an Investigating Officer of the case. In the meantime, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 13.10.2009. On 22.12.2009, a petition was filed by the petitioner before the Special Court in the aforesaid ECIR case praying therein to release the petitioner on bail on the ground that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 13.10.2009 and 60 days expired on 12.12.2009 and still the Investigating Officer of the case has not submitted police report as required under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. The said petition was rejected by the Special Court holding that the Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation filed a complaint against the petitioner with a prayer to take cognizance on 11.12.2009 i.e. within 60 days from the date of first remand of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Biren Poddar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 13.10.2009 and inspite of expiry of 60 days i.e. 12.12.2009, the Investigating Officer has not submitted police report as required under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. and as such, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under the proviso (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel submitted that a separate complaint filed by the Investigating Officer being Complaint Case No. 01 of 2009 cannot and shall not be treated as a police report as required under Section 173(2) of the Code. According to the learned Counsel, police report and complaint are not synonymous to each other, inasmuch as a police report as defined under the Code means report forwarded by the Police Officer to a Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, whereas a complaint as defined in Sub-section 2(d) of Section 173 means any allegations made to a Magistrate with a view of his taking action under the Code. Lastly, learned Counsel submitted that admittedly no police report/final form has been submitted till today by the Investigating Officer and as such, the petitioner is entitled to be release on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code.