Magistrate cannot take cognizance of charge sheet filed by Central Crime Branch unless State govt declares it as 'police station': Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently held that a Magistrate court cannot take cognizance of a charge sheet filed by an officer of the Central Crime Branch (CCB) unless the State government declares the CCB as a police station. .Unless such a declaration is made, the CCB officer cannot be considered as an officer in-charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a Bench of Justice BA Patil ruled. ."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 (CCB officer) 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," the Court said..The ruling came in two petitions filed by Dr MG Gopal, Principal & Dean of Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Dr. Appaji Gowda M.S., President Rajya Vakkaligara Sangha and Dr.Nisarga, Chairman, Governing Council KIMS, challenging the order passed by the Magistrate court. .The Magistrate had dismissed the petitioners' discharge application and taken cognizance of the final report filed by the CCB, thus ordering registration of case against them..Factual Background.KIMS is one among several other educational institutions run by Rajya Vakkaligara Sangha. As per the complaint, Gopal had misused his power and secured admission for six medical students for the academic year 2014-15. For the same, it was alleged that he had procured Rs. 30 lakh. .Subsequently, an amount Rs 17 lakh was paid by the complainant for getting his son admitted to the first Year MBBS Course. For the purpose of recommendation from accused No.2-the Director of Vakkalagira Sangha, a reference letter was given. It is further alleged that in August, 2014, an amount of Rs 3,72,000 was taken from the complainant. .Later, instead of granting admission of the son of the complainant, the authorities admitted the niece of another accused. Due to this, a case was registered against the Dean and two others, as it was alleged that they had committed offences of breach of trust and cheating, among others..The Magistrate court directed the registration of a case against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 477, 420, 120B, 114 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. .Aggrieved, the Dean and others filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court to set aside the orders of the Magistrate. .Arguments of Parties.Senior Advocate CV Nagesh appearing for 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..The present case he said was filed with a final report by CCB which had 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 a court or by an administrative order, he added. .It was further contended that as there is no report filed by the investigating officer in-charge of the police station, therefore, cognizance taken by the Magistrate is not sustainable in law..Further it was contended that the Magistrate had 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 a prima facie case and there must be sufficient grounds made out by the complainant. But in the instant case, no such material was available..Vehemently opposing these submissions, special Public Prosecutor VM 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 when investigating an offence. In that light, the contention of the petitioners-accused is not sustainable in law. .Further, he submitted as per Section 156(2) of the Code, no proceedings of the police officer shall be challenged on the ground that the officer was not empowered for the purpose of investigation. .Moreover, it was argued that CCB police is a specially constituted branch for investigation and therefore, they are superior in rank. CCB is attached to central police station and the FIR filed indicates that it is central police which has filed the charge sheet..What the Court held .After hearing the arguments of parties, the Court firstly relied on section 173 (2) of the CrPC to hold that it is the officer in-charge of a police station who is authorized to forward and submit the report in the prescribed form to the jurisdictional Magistrate to take cognizance. ."Section 173(2) of the Code contemplates submission of report of investigation. From plain reading of the said provision it is evident that it is the officer in-charge of a police station who is authorized to forward and submit the report in the prescribed form to the jurisdictional Magistrate to take cognizance. The words used in Section 173(2) are "shall forward" which themselves give the meaning that it is the officer in-charge of the police station to file the final report.".The Court further rejected the contention of the State that a CCB police officer is superior in rank to an officer in charge of the police station in the local jurisdiction.."...it is the police officers superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of the police station who have been conferred with such power as that of the officer in-charge of the police station. But in the case on hand, CCB police are not the officers superior in rank to an officer in-charge of the police station in the local jurisdiction. In that light, the contention which has been taken up by the learned SPP-I is not acceptable.".The Court proceeded to hold that when CCB is not a police station, then the final report filed by it is not proper under Section 173(2) of the Code..The Court also said that unlike the powers conferred by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Police Manual, dealing with duties of the police under the Special Acts, the Karnataka government had not issued such authorisation declaring the CCB a police station..Hence, the Court concluded that the Magistrate failed to keep in view the provisions of Sections 190(1) and 173(2) of CrPC regarding whether the CCB is having any authority to file the report or not."Though the learned Magistrate has observed that he has perused the statement of the witnesses and material on record, but as discussed above, while taking cognizance if he has not kept in view the provisions of Sections 190(1) and 173(2) of the Code whether the CCB is having any authority to file the report or not, that itself shows that he has not applied his mind properly to the proposition of law and factual matrix of the case on hand. I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law," the Court said. .Justice Patil accordingly allowed the petitions and set aside the orders passed by the Magistrate..[Read judgment]