Delhi High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State on 3 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4955/2014 and Crl. MA No. 16954/2014 (stay)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for
CBI with SI R.K. Sangwan, I.O
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% (ORAL)
Impugned order of 20th October, 2014 directs the concerned SP,
DIG, as well as Director of CBI to obtain written explanations from
the Investigating Officer to submit Action Taken Report against the
erring officials in proceedings in R.C. No. BDI/2014/E/0007 of CBI,
BS & FC 30/09/2014 titled CBI vs. Amit Arora & Ors.
Learned Standing Counsel for petitioner/CBI submits that
Investigating Officer had sought six search warrants and Bank
Officers were the members of the search team and their statements
under sub-section 5 of Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
are not to be recorded. It is submitted that Section 100 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 cannot be literally construed to say that
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2014 Page 1
independent respectable persons from the locality have to be joined in
the search and recovery proceedings. To assail the impugned order, it
was submitted by learned Standing Counsel for CBI that judicial
notice cannot be taken of the fact that private citizens seldom come
forward to join the search proceedings and so the Bank Officers were
joined as members of the search team. Therefore, there was a
substantial compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and so that
directions are unwarranted and thus, quashing of the impugned order
is sought.
Learned Standing Counsel for petitioner/CBI submits that till
date no person has been arrested and so, notice of this petition is not
required to be issued. List of witnesses who were the members of the
search team has been placed on record.
Upon hearing and perusal of the impugned order, material on
record and list of witnesses so placed on record, I find that Officers of
Union Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Bank of India, Oriental Bank
of Commerce and Indian Overseas Bank were the members of the
search team.
The principle of audi alteram partem has been recapitulated by
the Apex Court in the following words:-
"In our view, the High Court was not justified and
correct in passing observations/strictures against
Appellants 2 and 3 without affording an opportunity of
being heard, and it is in violation of a catena of
pronouncements of this Court that harsh or disparaging
remarks are not to be made against the persons and
authorities whose conduct comes into consideration
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2014 Page 2
before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the
decision of the case." [State of W.B. v. Babu
Chakraborthy (2004) 12 SCC 201].
and
In State of W.B. v. Babu Chakraborthy, the principle was
reiterated by stating that the High Court was not justified
and correct in passing observations and strictures
against Appellants 2 and 3 therein without affording an
opportunity of being heard. [Om Prakash Chautala v.
Kanwar Bhan (2014) 5 SCC 417].
During the course of hearing, it was submitted by Standing
Counsel for the CBI that before passing of the impugned order, the
explanation from the Investigating Officer was not sought and had it
been done so, it would have been brought to the notice of the trial
Court that Bank Officers were associated in the search proceedings.
Since Bank Officers were associated during the search
proceedings, therefore, passing of the impugned order was
unwarranted. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned
order of 20th October, 2014 is hereby quashed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
FEBRUARY 03, 2015
sd
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2014 Page 3
