Lenin Ravindran vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

The petitioner is the third accused in the case which is registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as RC 2(A)/2018/CBI/ACB/Cochin under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The first accused in the case is the Additional Director of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). The second accused is the wife of the first accused. The petitioner herein, who is the third accused in the case, is the proprietor of the fourth accused firm M/s. South End Trade Links.

There is an allegation against the first accused that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his income during the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2017 and it was made by him with the connivance of his wife, the second accused.

The other allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) relate to purchase of medicines by the first accused from the fourth accused firm. The main allegation is that the first accused agreed to issue supply order for extra medicines to the fourth accused firm even though there was no demand for medicines from the CGHS dispensaries and even though there was no free space in the store room to keep the medicines. It is alleged that on 26.05.2017, the first accused issued order for purchasing medicines worth Rs.5,00,000/- to the fourth accused and the medicines were supplied by the fourth accused. It is also alleged that the first accused, in conspiracy with the third accused, created false documents to show that the medicines were received and kept at the CGHS office. It is further alleged that it was in pursuant to the conspiracy between the first and the third accused that the medicines were purchased from the fourth accused firm.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed by the third accused for quashing Annexure-A1 FIR, as against him.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the Assistant Solicitor General.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the various allegations against the petitioner in Annexure-A1 F.I.R. There is a specific allegation against the petitioner that there was a conspiracy between the first accused and the petitioner and it was in pursuance to such conspiracy that medicines were purchased from the fourth accused firm of which the petitioner is the proprietor. There is a specific allegation that, on 18.07.2017, the first and the third accused met at a hotel for sharing the bids for medicines quoted by various competitors. In view of these allegations in the F.I.R, it cannot be found that the F.I.R does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner.

The salutary principle laid down by the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed: AIR 1945 PC 18 and reiterated by the Supreme Court very often is that, in normal circumstances, the court shall not thwart any investigation into an offence but allow it to have its own course under the provisions of the Code. The power of the police to investigate cases where they suspect or even have reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence is unfettered. However, the Privy Council has also made a note of caution that "if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation".

The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation is that the F.I.R must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. The right of the police to conduct investigation is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R, prima facie, discloses the commission of offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation. On the other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. (See State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha : AIR 1982 SC 949).

Since Annexure-A1 F.I.R discloses commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner, the prayer for quashing it cannot be allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation of the case has been conducted since 2018 but there is no sign of submitting final report in the case. Learned counsel would submit that a direction may be issued to the CBI to file final report within a specific time.

Before considering the aforesaid request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a reference to the record of proceedings in the case is necessary. When this petition came up for admission on 04.09.2020, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI took notice and the case was posted to 28.09.2020 for instructions. When the case came up for hearing on 29.09.2020 and 05.11.2020, the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI sought time for filing statement.

When the case came up for hearing on 26.11.2020, this Court had recorded as follows:

"When the matter was taken up, learned Special Prosecutor for CBI submits that investigation is completed and sanction has been obtained. CBI proposes to file a final report within 15 days. Ascertain the present status and post for hearing on 16.12.2020. In the meanwhile, CBI may file their statement, if any."

Again, when the case came up for hearing on 16.12.2020, this Court had recorded as follows:

"The learned Special Prosecutor for the CBI submitted that in fact submission made on last occasion was that investigation was completed and sanction was awaited. It is submitted that immediately obtaining the sanction the final report can be filed. Post for hearing on 21.01.2021."

Thereafter, when the case came up for hearing on 17.03.2021, there was no representation for the CBI. It appears that the term of the Standing Counsel for the CBI had expired then and that the learned Assistant Solicitor General was appearing for the CBI in the case. This Court recorded the above fact. This Court also recorded that no statement was filed by the CBI in the matter.

When the case came up for hearing on 31.03.2021, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the Assistant Solicitor General repeated the submission that sanction for prosecution is awaited from the competent authority and final report would be filed immediately on obtaining sanction. Such a submission had been made before this Court months earlier but nothing happened. In these circumstances, I feel that it would be proper for this Court to direct the CBI to file final report in the case within a specific time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that a period of four months can be granted to the investigating officer to file final report in this case.

Consequently, the prayer for quashing Annexure-A1 F.I.R is rejected. The investigating officer is directed to file final report in the case in the competent court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today. The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.