TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consequently it also quashed the search and seizure effected on October 18, 1990 and directed that the money and articles seized be returned to the person from whom they were seized. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 3. On October 17, 1990 the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (S.P.E.), (A.C.B.), Calcutta received information from reliable source on telephone that respondent, who was then Director (Personnel), Eastern Coal Fields Limited, was a corrupt officer in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification had demanded and accepted a sum of rupees one lakh which he was carrying with him while going to Nagpur by Gitanjali Express on October 17, 1990. Since the parties have advanced arguments before us on the question whether the said report could be treated to be an information within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Prosecution, it is convenient to reproduce the General Diary Entry No. 681 of October 17, 1990 in extenso which is as follows:- G.D. Entry No. 681 of 17.10.1990 of C.B.I. S.P.E., A.C.B., CALCUTTA. 11.30 hours Information received from a reliable source indicate that Shri Tapan K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a revision petition before the High Court of Calcutta challenging the proceeding and sought quashing of the investigation as well as the General Diary Entry No. 681 of October 17, 1990 and the First Information Report lodged by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. He also prayed for return of the money and other articles seized from him by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on October 18, 1990. 7. Before the High Court several submissions were urged on behalf of the respondent seeking quashing of the investigation as well as the G.D. Entry and the First Information Report. 8. It was firstly submitted that the General Diary Entry did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and hence the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. had no authority to investigate the allegations made therein under Section 157 of the Code of criminal Procedure, since he could exercise the power to investigate only if the information given to the police related to the commission of a cognizable offence. Secondly it was urged that since the investigation itself was illegal, the search and seizure made pursuant thereto under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeded to take steps for investigation as was apparent from the G.D. Entry wherein he stated that he was taking action under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The submission that a wrong section was mentioned in the G.D. Entry by him was rejected on the grounds firstly, that a senior officer like the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. was not expected to make such a mistake and secondly, that the State was unable to mention the correct section which he should have mentioned therein. Moreover, there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizing a police officer to make a preliminary enquiry before investigation. The steps taken by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. were the steps which an investigating officer is authorized to take while investigating a case on the basis of a report disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, such as apprehension of the accused, collection of evidence, search and seizure etc. Though it was not disputed that in law, in an appropriate case, a G.D. Entry may be treated as a First Information Report and can provide the basis for investigation, in the instant case however, the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. lodged a F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on the basis of the said G.D. Entry is unlawful and without jurisdiction and should, therefore, be quashed. 13. Lastly, the High Court held that the search and seizure conducted by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. were not in accordance with law as a mandatory requirement of Section 165 of the Code was not fulfilled inasmuch as the officer making the investigation failed to record in writing the grounds for his belief that anything necessary for the purpose of an investigation into any offence which he was authorized to investigate may be found in any place and that such thing could not, in his opinion, be otherwise obtained without undue delay. The search and seizure was, therefore, illegal and the things recovered in pursuance of such illegal search must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. 14. On these findings, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and quashed the G.D. Entry, the First Information Report as well as the investigation, and directed return of the money and articles seized. 15. The crucial finding recorded by the High Court is that the facts stated in the G.D. Entry did not disclose the commission of a cognizable of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that such offence of criminal mis-conduct is a cognizable offence having regard to the second item of the last part of Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedures under the head II-Classification of offences Against - other laws . 21. The High Court fell into an error in thinking that the information received by the police could not be treated as a First Information Report since the allegation was vague in as much as it was not stated from whom the sum of rupees one lakh was demanded and accepted. Nor was it stated that such demand or acceptance was made as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, or for showing or forbearing to show in exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering, attempting to render any service or disservice to any person. Thus there was no basis for a police officer to suspect the commission of an offence which he was empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. 22. It is well settled that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can. 23. In the instant case the information received by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., clearly spells out the offence of criminal mis-conduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, inasmuch as there is a clear allegation that the respondent has demanded and accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification. The allegation is not as vague and bald as the High Court makes it out to be. There is a further assertion that the respondent is carrying with him the said sum of rupees one lakh and is to board the Gitanjali Express going to Nagpur. The allegation certainly gives rise to a suspicion that a cognizable offence may have been committed by the respondent which the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. was empowered to investigate. Therefore, if the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. proceeded to intercept the respondent and investigate the case, he did only that which he was in law obliged to do. His taking up the investigation, therefore, cannot be faulted. 24. The High Court has also quashed the G.D. Entry and the investigation on the ground that the information did not disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
