IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 35012 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJU P.V., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.P.R.VIKRAMAN, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, EDACOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI-6, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI COLONY, NEW DELHI-3. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, COCHIN UNIT, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM. 3. MRS.S.SHYNI IPS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, COCHIN UNIT, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM. 4. MR.S.SREEJITH IPS, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R4 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R4 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON 23/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 SEARCH LIST DT. 1.12.2009. EXT.P2 DO. DO. DT.1.12.2009. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN WPC 18058 OF 2007. EXT.P4 COMPLAINT DT.30.10.2009 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 COPY OF PETITION O.P. 131/2000 EXT.P6 DO. O.P.132/2000. EXT.P7 COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. 230/1996. EXT.P8 COPY OF 'MATHRUBHUMI' DAILY DT.28.2.98. EXT.P9 COPY OF F.NO.50/2006/AC DT.13.7.2006. EXT.P10 COPY OF LETTER DT. 18.9.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PETITIONER'S DIARY. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph Francis, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “1) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writs, directions or orders calling for all the records leading upto Ext.P1 and quash all further investigation against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent pursuant to Ext.P1. 2) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to entrust the investigation, if any, against the petitioner pursuant to ext.P1, by any other unit of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the State of Kerala other than the unit headed by the 3rd respondent. W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 2 3) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to see that the petitioner is not harassed in any manner by any officials under the 1st respondent in connection with the alleged investigation, if any, pursuant to Ext.P1.” 2. The case of the petitioner briefly is as follows. The above Writ Petition is filed against police harassment. The 4th respondent herein is now working as the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City. There are number of cases between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in his personal capacity. He had harassed the petitioner using his official power and influence. The petitioner was unnecessarily taken into police custody and detained in the police station. At that stage, the petitioner had approached this Court against police harassment, by filing W.P.C. No. 18058 of 2007. As per W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 3 Ext.P3 judgment in that Writ Petition, a Division Bench of this Court found that the 4th respondent had harassed the petitioner. Hence this Court directed the D.G.P. to conduct an enquiry against the 4th respondent and other police officials, who had harassed the petitioner. This Court had also directed the 4th respondent to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards cost. 3. Now the third respondent in this Writ Petition, who is a close family friend and well wisher of the 4th respondent, had taken charge as Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Cochin unit. The third respondent was a journalist at Kozhikode and thereafter she had undergone coaching for I.P.S. under the 4th respondent . When the 3rd respondent assumed charge as the S.P., C.B.I., Cochin unit, the petitioner anticipated the interference by the fourth respondent and therefore had given Ext.P4 complaint before the first respondent. W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 4 4. On 1.12.2009, officers under the third respondent from Cochin Unit had conducted a raid in the residence and factory of the petitioner from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. They had seized various documents, which were related to the disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Ext.P1 is the search list dt. 1.12.2009 for having seized documents from the residence of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the search list dt. 1.12.2009 for having seized documents from the factory of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the above said raid was conducted by the third respondent without any complaint whatsoever from any authorities, except if any from the 4th respondent. The petitioner was being harassed by the third respondent and her officers. The petitioner apprehends that he will not get justice, if the investigation is to be conducted by the third respondent. Hence this Writ Petition was filed. W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 5 5. Respondents 1 to 3 filed detailed counter affidavit. 6. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already faced severe harassments in the hands of the senior police officials in Cochin City at the instance of the 4th respondent and that the present raid and alleged investigation against the petitioner by the third respondent is upon the influence, instigation and instruction of the 4th respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no complaint from any person or authorities in which the petitioner had transactions, asking an enquiry by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact that the officers under the third respondent had visited the Canara Bank on 27.10.2009 and sought for the documents relating to the disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 6 would ipso facto prove that the enquiry, if any, under the third respondent is nothing but to help and favour the 4th respondent. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner strongly believes that if the investigation, if any, is conducted by respondent No. 2 or by respondent No.3, the petitioner will not get justice. 8. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated as follows: “3. On 19.11.2009, ACB, Cochin registered a criminal case vide RC 14(A)/2009 u/s. 120B r/w. 420 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against Sri.K.R. Ramakrishnan (A1), the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Ernakulam, Shri,. P.K.R. Nambiar (A2), the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Overseas Branch Ernakaulam, Shri.S. Sathisan (A3), the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Ernakulam and Shri.P.V. Viju (A4), Proprietor, M/s. W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 7 Marine Ventures, 22/1491, Cochin -6. The gist of the case as per the FIR is that Shri.K.R. Ramakrishnan (A1), the then Brnach Manager, Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Ernakulam, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri. P.V. Viju (A4), Proprietor, M/s. Marine Ventures, 22/1491, Cochin -6, engaged in the processing and export of Marine Products, to cheat the Bank and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, during 2000 to 2004, dishonestly and with intention to cause undue pecuniary benefit to A4, processed, recommended and got sanctioned a packing credit facility of Rs. 40 Lakhs and foreign bill discounting facility limit of Rs. 55 Lakhs, in December, 2000. In these processes A1 knowingly suppressed the fact that A4 was the guarantor for the loans availed by M/s. Bell Foods, owned by his mother Smt.P.Usha Devi, which had already become non- performing and outstanding in the same bank. It is further informed that A4 did not maintain sufficient stock or had business turnover as projected to the Bank. In this background, A1 dishonestly recommended for enhancing W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 8 the packing credit limit to Rs.50 Lakhs, without verifying the credit worthiness of A4 and by giving a false report that the account is satisfactory. On the basis of this recommendation, the limit was enhanced to Rs. 50 Lakhs. In May, 2001, Shri. P.K.R. Nambiar (A2), the Branch Manager, who succeeded A1, also entered into this conspiracy and dishonestly sanctioned a term loan of Rs.4 Lakhs to A4 in October, 2002. Further, Sri.S. Sathisan (A3), the Branch Manager, who succeeded A2, as the Branch In charge, joined the said criminal conspiracy, in pursuance of which he dishonestly recommended and got sanctioned an additional packing credit limit of Rs. 35 Lakhs and enhanced the foreign bill discounting facility to Rs.67 Lakhs, in June, 2003 without any additional security or proper credit assessment. A4 cheated the Bank, in pursuance of the said conspiracy and obtained wrongful gain to the tune of about Rs.1.95 Crores. The loan amount so obtained was not utilised for the purpose for which it was sanctioned and it has become NPA. W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 9 4. As part of the investigation into the above case, the CBI conducted searches at M/s. Marine Ventrues, 22/1491, Cochin-6 and M/s. Bell Foods, Pallichal Road, Thoppumpady, Cochin -5 on 1.12.2009. A total of 11 documents were seized from the premises of M/s. Marine Ventures and 17 documents were seized from the premises of M/s. Bell Foods. The firm M/s. Bell Foods, was found to be run by the petitioner Shri. Viju P.V. It is to submit that he is also the guarantor for the loan sanctioned to M/s. Bell Foods, which is in the name of his mother Smt.P. Usha Devi in which a total amount of Rs.6.52 Crores is outstanding in the same bank i.e. Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Ernakulam. The outstanding amount in the loan sanctioned to Marine Ventures, owned by the petitioner is Rs.1.95 Crores. It is to further submit that as succeeding Branch Managers enhanced the packing credit facility to M/s. Bell Foods without taking sufficient collateral securities, the Bank is unable to recover the outstanding dues. W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 10 5. The averments in para 1 to 3 are not correct as RC 14(A)/2009 was registered on the basis of a source information in the normal course. CBI is competent to register cases against public servants and private persons for conspiracy or abetment of the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 where Govt. of India revenue interests are involved. The cases where public servants conspire with private persons to cheat the government, both the public servants and private parties are mutual beneficiaries and therefore, it is a normal practice in CBI to initiate cases on its own, based on the credible information, received by its own officers. The CBI is not aware of any civil dispute between the petitioner Shri,. Viju P.V. and the 4th respondent Shri.S. Sreejith I.P.S. and these disputes don't have a bearing on criminal cases which are investigated purely on merits and professional consideration. A copy of the F.I.R. is produced and marked as Ext.R2(A).” W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 11 9. In view of the facts mentioned in the above paragraphs in the counter affidavit, we are of the view that the allegation of the petitioner that the above raids were conducted without any basis cannot be accepted. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents 1 to 3 did not conduct any preliminary enquiry before registering the crime. In the decision reported in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & ors. ((2009) 1 SCC 441) it was held that lodging of an F.I.R. by the C.B.I. is governed by a manual. It may hold a preliminary enquiry. It has been given the said power in Chapter VI of C.B.I. Manual. A prima facie case may be held to have been established on completion of a preliminary enquiry. The relevant portion of para 1 of Chapter IX of C.B.I. (Crime) Manual, 2005 regarding preliminary enquiries reads as follows: W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 12 “When information available is adequate to indicate commission of cognizable offence or its discreet verification leads to similar conclusion, a Regular Case must be registered instead of a Preliminary Enquiry. It is, therefore, necessary that the SP must carefully analyse the material available at the time of evaluating the verification report submitted by the Verifying Officer, so that registration of PE is not resorted to where a Regular Case can be registered.” Therefore it is clear that preliminary enquiry before registration of F.I.R. is not mandatory. Exts.P1 and P2 search lists would show that at the time of conducting those searches a crime was registered by the C.B.I. as R.C.14-A/2009. 11. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the crime was registered on the basis of a W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 13 source of information in the normal course and that the C.B.I. is competent to register a case against public servants and private persons for conspiracy or abetment of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the Government of India revenue interests are involved and that it is a normal practice in the C.B.I. to initiate case on its own based on credible information received by its own officers. 12. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the searches were conducted as per Section 165 Cr.P.C. on 1.12.2009 during the course of investigation into the case and due intimation regarding the search was sent to the Special Judge-I, C.B.I., Ernakulam on 2.12.2009. If the search was conducted as per Section 165 of Cr.P.C., the first prayer in the Writ Petition to quash all further investigation against the petitioner by the second respondent pursuant to Ext.P1 cannot be allowed. W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 14 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the decision in Nirmal Singh Kahlon (supra), in which it was held in paragraph 28 as follows: “28. An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the decision reported in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & ors. (1970 (1) SCC 653), in which it was held: W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 15 “Though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers. The fact that the Code does not contain any other provision giving power to a Magistrate to stop investigation by the police cannot be a ground for holding that such a power must be read in Section 159 of the Code.” 15. Learned counsel for the third respondent invited our attention to the decision reported in Central Bureau of Investigation W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 16 v. Rajesh Gandhi (AIR 1997 SC 93), in which it was held that the accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offence he is charged with. In the decision reported in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 1042 (SC), in which it was held that: “The High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change investigating officer in midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more particularly on basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a named Judge.” 16. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the other accused have no complaint against the investigation of the case by the C.B.I. unit headed by the third respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the crime is registered on the basis of bank W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 17 documents, which would reveal the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent has to give report regarding investigation of the case to the superior officers in every month. 17. The main allegation of the petitioner against the investigation by the third respondent is stated in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition, which reads as follows: “The 3rd respondent/S.P., CBI, Cochin Unit is a close associate of 4th respondent S. Sreejith IPS. The 3rd respondent was originally a Journalist based in Kozhikode. The 3rd respondent was trained for IPS coaching under the 4th respondent/S.Sreejith IPCSA while he was residing at Rarichan road at Kozhikode. The 3rd respondent is the best family friend of the 4th respondent/S.Sreejith IPS and the 3rd respondent is a frequent personal visitor of the 4th respondent while he W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 18 was serving as Superintendent of Police at Kasarcode, Kolla, Kottayam and Kozhikode.” In reply to that allegation, the third respondent filed counter affidavit and in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter, the allegations are denied. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent reads as follows: “9. The averments in para 7 of the writ petition are false and hence denied. It is incorrect to state that I am a close associate of 4th respondent. I never worked as a journalist as alleged. I took my P.G. Diploma in Mass Communication and Journalism from Institute of Communication and Journalism, Calicut in the year 1998. The averment that the 4th respondent trained me for IPS examination is absolutely false and hence denied. I attended the coaching for Civil Services Examination W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 19 conducted by the Institute of Management, Trivandrum, which was headed then by an IG of Police. 10. Many IAS and IPS officers, including Shri. Sreejith IPS and other academicians took classes for the coaching. The averment that I am the best family friend of 4th respondent and a frequent visitor while serving as Superintendent of Police, Kasargode, Kollam, Kottayam and Kozhikode is absolutely false and hence denied. After training in Police Academy in 2001, I was allotted Orissa cadre and since then I had been working in Orissa. Even though I hail from Alleppey, I could not visit my home land even once in an year. It is only after my deputation to CBI and joining the cochin unit that I have been continuously staying in Kerala. I submit that I have no personal intimacy with the 4th respondent.” 18. The petitioner could not substantiate his allegations against the third respondent by producing any evidence. In the rejoinder filed W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 20 by the third respondent it is stated that she had contact with the 4th respondent through mobile phone. The 4th respondent had also contacted her through mobile phone. It is a fact that respondents 3 and 4 are IPS officers. The mere fact that the 4th respondent contacted the third respondent over mobile phone or the third respondent contacted the 4th respondent through mobile phone is not a sufficient factor to vitiate the investigation. Therefore, we are of the view that the second prayer in the Writ Petition also cannot be allowed. 19. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has no case that the officers of the first respondent are harassing the petitioner in connection with the crime registered against him. Therefore, we are of the view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as it is without any merit. 20. Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this Writ Petition is not a bar for the first respondent W.P.(C).No. 35012 of 2009 21 to entrust the investigation against the petitioner to any other unit other than a unit headed by the third respondent. We must not be taken to have expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm