CBI Has Jurisdiction To Proceed Further Even If It’s Revealed That No PC Act Offences Were Involved: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Writ Petition of an accused, seeking to quash the Summons and all further proceedings pending before the Trial Court.
The Kerala High Court held that the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) does not loose its jurisdiction to proceed further even if it is revealed that no offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) were involved.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by an accused, seeking to quash the Summons and all further proceedings pending before the Trial Court.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu observed, “This Court, at this stage, finds no prejudice against the petitioner as a result of the investigation conducted by the CBI. The contention of the petitioner that once it was revealed that no PC Act offences were involved, the CBI lost its jurisdiction to proceed further cannot be sustained.”
The Bench emphasised that the investigating agency is bound to submit the final report in respect of the non-PC Act offences before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate to proceed further.
Advocate V. Subramanian i.e., the Petitioner appeared as the party-in-person while Spl. GP Sreelal Warriar and Advocate Leo Lukose appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution case, the accused Nos. 1-3 hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Ernakulam by availing credit facilities worth Rs. 30 lakhs in Packing Credit Limit and Rs. 50 lakhs in FDB limits in the name of M/s Dharaja Ventures Private Limited using false and forged documents relating to land not in existence as collateral security. Thereafter, the accused No. 3 contacted accused No. 4 to arrange forged documents, who approached accused No. 5 to prepare such documents. Accordingly, the said documents were prepared and then the accused No. 4 approached the Panel Advocate of the Bank for legal opinion based on the forged documents, making him believe that the same were genuine. Thereafter, he approached the accused No. 6 i.e., the Petitioner who was the Panel Valuer of the Bank for the valuation report.
Allegedly, the Petitioner joined the conspiracy and prepared a false location sketch of a property. A valuation report showing its value at Rs. 72.87 Lakhs, along with false location sketch and forged FMB sketches, were allegedly prepared. Resultantly, the credit facility was sanctioned and the Bank suffered a loss of Rs. 80 lakhs. Pursuantly, an FIR was registered and the CBI investigated the case and initially alleged offences under the PC Act. However, during the investigation, it was found that no public servants were involved, and the offences under the PC Act were dropped. The Special Court returned the Final Report instructing the Investigating Officer (IO) to submit the same before the jurisdictional Court. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, which framed charges against the Petitioner under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 472 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Being aggrieved, the Petitioner was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The argument of the petitioner is that once the CBI concludes that the offences under the PC Act are not revealed, they are divested of the power to submit the final report in respect of the non-PC Act offences. In the circumstances mentioned above, the investigating agency does not investigate non-PC Act offences independently. Throughout the process of investigation the inter relationship between the PC Act and the non-PC Act offences subsists.”
The Court said that there is no irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted by the CBI and reiterated that even complete absence of valid authorization in law has been held to be a mere defect of investigation which would not per se vitiate investigation and must be judged in each case on the anvil of prejudice.
“The very purpose of the investigation is to collect the evidence relating to the commission of the offence for establishing the accusation against the offender. It would always be necessary for the court to examine that if the accused in anyway has been prejudiced by the steps taken by the investigating agency and further by the court proceeding with the matter”, it further enunciated.
The Court was of the view that the error in the name of the Court in the summons will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court in anyway and this will not cause any prejudice to the accused.
“In the light of the discussions made above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, I clarify that de hors these observations, the trial Court is absolutely free to analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the evidence and materials placed by the prosecution as well as the defence during the trial”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and directed the Trial Court to complete the trial and dispose of the case within six months.
Cause Title- V. Subramanian v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:19421)
