Central Crime Branch(CCB) Not A 'Police Station'; Chargesheet Filed By It Invalid : Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that Central Crime Branch (CCB) is not a police station and therefor the final report filed by it is not in contemplation with the provisions of Section 173(2) of the Code. The magistrate court cannot take cognizance of it.A single bench of Justice B A Patil on January 18, allowed two petitions filed by Dr.M.G.Gopal Principal & Dean of KIMS and Dr. Appaji Gowda M.S., President Rajya Vakkaligara Sangha and Dr.Nisarga, Chairman, Governing Council Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, challenging the order passed by the magistrate court, dismissing the discharge application and taking cognizance of the final report filed by the CCB and ordering process against them.The bench in its order noted that: "It is fairly conceded by the respondents that no such authorization has been given by the State to declare CCB as a police station. As per Section 2(s) of the Code the State Government has to declare either generally or specially any post or place to be a police station, but no such declaration is forthcoming before this Court. In that light, admittedly the investigation has been done by the CCB and it is he who had submitted the report in terms of Section 173 of the Code and in view of the discussion made by me above, he cannot be considered to be an officer-incharge. In that light, the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the report submitted by the CCB".Case Details:As per the complaint Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences ('KIMS') is one among several other educational institutions run by Rajya Vakkaligara Sangha. For the academic year 2014-15, in respect of allotment of medical seats, though under the management quota there was scope for admission, accused no 1 (Gopal), by misusing his power, got admitted six medical students by directing accused No.3, by taking an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs.Subsequently, on 3.6.2014, an amount Rs.17 Lakhs was paid for getting the son of the complainant admitted to the first Year MBBS Course. For the purpose of recommendation from accused No.2-the Director of Vakkalagira Sangha, a reference letter has been given. Subsequently, instead of admission of the son of the complainant, they admitted the niece of accused No.5. and thereby they have committed an offence of breach of trust, cheating and other offences.Submission on behalf of the petitioners:Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing accused Gowda and Nisarga submitted that as per Section 173(2) of the Code, it is the officer-in-charge of the police station who shall forward the report to the Magistrate empowered to take the cognizance and as such, admittedly the present case has been filed with a final report by CCB which has not been declared as a police station as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Criminal Procedure Code.When the CCB Inspector is not in-charge of the police station, he is not competent to file the report. CCB being a specialized Investigating Agency can investigate a particular crime which is referred to it either by judicial order of the Court or by an administrative order.Reliance was placed on the order of the High Court in the case of Rakesh Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka & others, in which it was held that CCB not being a police station, neither a person in-charge of CCB nor an officer forming part of CCB can register any complaint. In that light, there is no report filed by the Investigating Officer in-charge of the police station and cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, is not sustainable in law.A reference to Supreme Court order in the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Lalu Singh, (2014, 4 SCC 663) was also made in which the court held that under Section 36 of the Code, CCB is not the Officer in-charge of the police station for the purpose of submitting the report contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code.Senior Advocate Nagesh submitted that "Cognizance taken without there being any proper report by the in-charge Officer is not sustainable in law. The interpretation of Section 173 of the Code is no more res-integra and it is the officer in-charge of the police station who shall forward the report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance."Further it was contended that the Magistrate has not applied his mind while taking cognizance. In order to issue notice under Section 204(2) of the Code, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that there exists prima facie case and there must be sufficient grounds made out by the complainant. But in the instant case, no such material is available. To support this contention, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2015)4 SCC 609.Prosecution opposed the petition:Special Public Prosecutor V.M.Sheelvant submitted that police officers in CCB police station have been authorized to investigate and they step into the shoes of the Station House Officers and as such the contention of the...

Central Crime Branch(CCB) Not A 'Police Station'; Chargesheet Filed By It Invalid : Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Central Crime Branch(CCB) Not A 'Police Station'; Chargesheet Filed By It Invalid : Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers