Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1291 (KAR)

N. Kumar v. CBI/ACB

2010-12-16

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2010
ORDER Subhash B. Adi, J.—Petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 30th December, 2009 in Special C.C. No. 46/2008 passed by the 31st Addl. & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, insofar as the Petitioner is concerned. 2. Petitioner is accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 46/2008. He has been charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 201, 409, 120, 468 and 471 of IPC, further read with Section 13 Sub-section (2) read with Section 13 Sub-section (1) Clauses (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short referred to as 'the Act') 3. The case of the prosecution is that, accused Nos. 1 and 6 being the Branch Managers of the State Bank of Mysore, Nangli Branch, Kolar district during the period between 20th June, 1998 to 20th June, 2002, they entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 15 to misappropriate the subsidy amount by making use of the forged document to cheat Karnataka Khadi and Village Industries Board and also to screen the evidence. It is in this regard, the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short referred to as 'the C.B.I.) was authorised to investigate the matter as regard to the misappropriation of large amount. The C.B.I., on making preliminary enquiry, registered the complaint and after conducting investigation submitted charge-sheet alleging that the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 201, 409, 120 and 471 of IPC; further read with Section 13 Sub-section (2) read with Section 13 Sub-section (1) Clauses (c) and (d) of the Act. Accused No. 2-Petitioner herein and accused No. 6 filed an application under Sections 227 and 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia seeking discharge. 4. Accused Nos. 2 and 6 contended that, the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., is not an Officer in-charge of the, Police Station, as such, he cannot file the charge-sheet. As per the Central Bureau of, Investigation (Crime) Manual-2005 (for short referred to as the 'CBI Manual'), the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., is the Station House Officer and is the only competent Officer to sign the charge-sheet and forward the same. The said application was resisted by the State Public Prosecutor inter alia contending that, sufficient material was collected against the accused to file the charge-sheet. The said application was resisted by the State Public Prosecutor inter alia contending that, sufficient material was collected against the accused to file the charge-sheet. The Superintendent of Police alone is not the Station House Officer to file the charge-sheet. The Inspector of Police is the competent officer and has filed the charge-sheet, which has been forwarded by the Superintendent of Police as required under Section 173 Sub-section (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 5. Trial Court on' the basis of the contentions raised framed the following points for consideration: I. Whether the Al and A6 establish that the charge-sheet filed at the instant case is in contravention of provisions Under Sections 168, 169, 170 and 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure as such the charge-sheet is require to be returned for proper presentation after curing the defect? 2. What order? 6. Trial Court on appreciation of the contentions and the materials collected by the Police and further referring to the decisions of the Apex Court held that the charge-sheet has been endorsed by the Superintendent of Police and is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, held that the presentation of the charge-sheet is proper. Further held that there is no need for returning the charge-sheet for proper presentation, accordingly, it rejected the application. It is against the said order, this petition has been filed. 7. Sri S.G. Bhagawan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, in terms of the provisions of C.B.I. Manual, the Superintendent of Police is the authority and he is the officer in-charge of the Police Station, as such, he alone is empowered to prepare and submit the final report to the Court. However, the charge-sheet now filed is not based on the report prepared by the Superintendent of Police, but it is prepared by the Police Inspector, C.B.I., and the Superintendent of Police has only forwarded the same. Mere signing the charge-sheet as forwarded will not comply with the requirement of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure He further submitted that, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would mutadis mutandis applicable to the investigation conducted by the C.B.I., and they shall prevail over the other provisions. Under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C, the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet has to be only by the Officer in-charge of the Police Station. Under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C, the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet has to be only by the Officer in-charge of the Police Station. It is only in case if the officer in-charge of the Police Station is not available, his subordinate can act as the officer in-charge of the Police Station. In this case, when the trial Court has held that the Superintendent of Police is an Officer in-charge of the Police Station, it committed an error in holding that the presentation of charge-sheet is proper only on the ground that, it is forwarded by the officer in-charge of the Police Station. He referred to the dictionary meaning of the word "forward" and submitted that, the Court has committed an error in understanding the meaning of the word "forward", it means, to transit, carry or process of communication. It ought to have considered the difference between the process of investigation and the meaning of the word "forward". The investigation and final report is prepared by the Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police has forwarded, as such, the submission of the charge-sheet is not valid and is violating Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure The word "forward" does not mean only process of communication, it is preparation and forwarding of report. In his regard, he relied on the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 165, 166, 167, 168 and 169 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that, under these provisions, it is the officer in-charge, who is empowered to investigate the matter. He also submitted that, though certain investigation could be done by other officer, however, result of such investigation by such subordinate has to be reported to the officer in-charge. The scheme of the Chapter. XII of Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the officer in-charge shall investigate the matter, in the event if it is investigated by his subordinates, such report shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge and in terms of Section 173, every investigation made under the said Chapter, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the Police report in a form prescribed by the State Government. Without preparing the final report, the Superintendent of Police only forwarding it, will not amount to proper filing of charge-sheet. 8. Without preparing the final report, the Superintendent of Police only forwarding it, will not amount to proper filing of charge-sheet. 8. To support his contention, he relied on a decision reported in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 and submitted that, where an investigation is conducted by subordinate officer, such subordinate officer has to report the result of the investigation to the officer in-charge of the Police Station and if, upon completion of the investigation it appears to the officer in-charge of the Police Station that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground, he may decide to release the suspected accused, if in custody, on his execution a bond, however, if it appears to him that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to place the accused on trial, he may take necessary steps as contemplated under Section 170 of Code of Criminal Procedure In either case, on the completion of the investigation, he has to submit a report to the Magistrate under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure Relying on the said decision, he submitted that, the officer in-qharge of the Police Station has a responsibility of preparing the report based on the material cpllected during the course of investigation. The final opinion on the basis of the investigation is of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station and not by any other officer. 9. He also relied on the decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 1087 in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. and submitted that, under the CBI Manual, the Superintendent of Police is the Officer in-charge of the Police Station and the final step in the investigation, namely, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial has to be of the officer in-charge of the police station and this function cannot be delegated. Though Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, confers power on the superior officer to supervise, but the report of the investigation is only by the officer in-charge of the police station. 10. Though Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, confers power on the superior officer to supervise, but the report of the investigation is only by the officer in-charge of the police station. 10. Relying on the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short referred to as 'the Delhi Police Act'), the Central Government is conferred with the power to issue notification in the Official Gazette to specify the offences, which could be investigated by the Delhi Special Police and the said jurisdiction is extended to the entire Union Territory, however, in case of investigation to be made for the offence committed within the territory of any State, with the consent of the State, an investigation could be made. Referring to the provisions of the Delhi Police Act and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of C.B.I. Manual, he submitted that, in this case, presentation of the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate is not in consonance with the requirement of law and is not validly presented. He also referred to the provisions of the Act and submitted that, though Section 17 provides for investigation of the offence under the provisions of the Act, by an Inspector under the Delhi Police Act, however, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the definition of "officer in-charge of a police station" and the provisions of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable, not only investigation done by the Delhi Special Police under the Special Act, but also for the offence punishable under the provisions of the I.P.C., however, insofar as presentation of charge-sheet is concerned, neither the Delhi Police Act nor the Prevention of Corruption Act refers to the officer in-charge of the Police Station and as such, though investigation could be made by any other officer, but the final report must be by the officer in-charge. In this case, the final report is not prepared by the officer in-charge, as such, the presentation of such- report before the Court cannot be regafded as the filing of charge-sheet and the learned Judge does not get the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. In this case, the final report is not prepared by the officer in-charge, as such, the presentation of such- report before the Court cannot be regafded as the filing of charge-sheet and the learned Judge does not get the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. He also submitted that, when there is no legally valid final report, no charge could be framed against the accused, and when there is no material in the eye of law, the learned Judge should have discharged the accused. 11. Sri. C.H. Jadhay,Jearned Special Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that, no doubt, in case of investigation of an offence by the C.B.I, under the provisions of Delhi Police Act, it has to be in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, to understand as to whether the investigation conducted in this case is proper or not, he referred to Section 2 of the said Act and submitted that the jurisdiction of C.B.I., to investigate the matter is entire Union Territory in respect of an offence notified under Section 3 of the said Act, however, subject to certain restrictions. It is in consonance with the provisions of the said Act, for the purpose of the convenience and proper implementation of the scheme of the Delhi Police Act, in respect of anti-corruption cases, the C.B.I., has organized the divisions into zones such as Regional and Branches/Units, correspondingly the jurisdiction is confirmed, in respect of Karnataka, Superintendent of Police/ACB, Bangalore is in-charge of the Branch for Karnataka and its Head Office is at Bangalore, jurisdiction is entire State of Karnataka. For the purpose of administration of the functioning of each unit or branch, the Superintendent of Police would be supervising the administration. Clause 7.9 of the CBI Manual describes the duties/responsibilities of the Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police, the branch or the unit would be under the charge of a Superintendent of Police for the purpose of work, administration, welfare of the Staff and discipline. However, Clause 7.16 refers to the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. The function of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors posted at the Branches/Units is to make enquiries and investigations and to gather information. They will enquire into or investigate the cases, which are allotted to them. However, Clause 7.16 refers to the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. The function of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors posted at the Branches/Units is to make enquiries and investigations and to gather information. They will enquire into or investigate the cases, which are allotted to them. It is also their duty to look after their cases in Courts during trial or during the disciplinary proceedings, which are initiated on the recommendations of CBI. Thus, from these provisions it is clear that, investigation is concerned, it can be conducted by the concerned Inspector of Police or Sub-Inspector of Police to whom the case is entrusted. Chapter-X of the CBI Manual deals with the regular cases and Clause 10.28 refers to the filing of the report. Relying on these clauses, he submitted that, in case of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act, on receipt of the sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, the Investigating Officer will prepare a self-contained draft charge-sheet giving the details of investigation conducted and evidence/charges against each accused person in respect of each of the allegations. The said draft charge-sheet shall be vetted by the Law Officer of the Branch and the Branch Superintendent of Police and also by the DIG in important cases and would thereafter be finalized and signed by the Investigating- Officer and forwarded to the Court by the Superintendent of Police under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure along with the statements of listed witnesses and original documents/articles relied upon and the sanction for prosecution. Referring to this clause, he submitted that, the investigation and forwarding of the charge-sheet are two separate stages. The Investigating Officer is required to prepare a draft charge-sheet with details of the investigation and the evidence collected. The said draft charge-sheet shall be vetted by Law Officer of the Branch and the Branch SP and also by the DIG in important cases. It is thereafter finalized, signed by the Investigating Officer and forwarded by the Superintendent of Police. In this case also, based on the investigation and the result of the same was verified by the Superintendent of Police and is finalized and signed by the Investigating Officer and has been rightly forwarded by the Superintendent of Police under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that, there is no illegality in the submission of the charge-sheet. 12. 12. To support his contention, he relied on the decision reported in Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2009 SC 984 and submitted that, the term "investigation" and "officer in-charge of Police Station" is defined under Section 2 Clause (h) and Clause (o) of Code of Criminal Procedure The officer in-charge of a Police Station includes, when the officer in-charge of the police station is absent from the station house or unable to perform his duties, the police officer at the station house, who is next in rank and not below the rank of Constable would be the officer in-charge of the Police Station. The word "officer in-charge of a Police Station" is inclusive one and has an expansive meaning. The Apex Court referring to Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure observed that, the words "in rank" should be given a purposive construction. Although a plain reading of the said provision shows three ingredients, i.e., the investigation must be carried out by an officer in-charge, which would be supervised by an officer superior in rank in respect of a local area to which they are appointed, but in the context of the power of the State vis-a-vis the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, the same deserves a wider application. If the meaning of the officer in-charge of the investigation and supervision could be controlled by superior officer or if the investigation in the absence of the officer in-charge could be done by the subordinate or any other officer subordinate to the officer in-charge, such officer can conduct investigation and submit report. Fact that, Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual requires that the draft report and a report to be signed by the Investigating Officer, the same has been done in this case and it is forwarded by the officer in-charge of the Police Station. Just because the officer in charge of the Police Station has forwarded, it does not mean that, he has not applied his mind to the investigation. There is no illegality in the investigation nor in the submission of the report and it will not cause any injustice or prejudice to the accused, as the accused are not alleging that the investigation is not properly done. What is alleged is that the officer in-charge has not prepared the final report and has only forwarded the same. There is no illegality in the investigation nor in the submission of the report and it will not cause any injustice or prejudice to the accused, as the accused are not alleging that the investigation is not properly done. What is alleged is that the officer in-charge has not prepared the final report and has only forwarded the same. Fact that the investigation is supervised, draft report submitted to the officer in-charge and thereafter the final report is prepared and is signed by the Investigating Officer, fulfill the requirement of provisions of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure He further submitted that, Section 173 Sub-section (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure only requires that the officer incharge of the Police Station shall forward the final report and it is done strictly in compliance with the said requirement. 13. In the light of the above submissions, the points that arise for consideration in this case are as under. 1. Whether the investigation done by the Inspector of Police (CBI) is valid? 2. Whether the charge-sheet forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (CBI) is proper presentation of final report/charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Court? 3. Whether the order of the trial Court calls for interference? 14. The C.B.I., has been established in exercise of power by the Central Government under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. It is not in dispute that the offences alleged against the accused are notified offence under Section 3 of the said Act. It is also not in dispute that, C.B.I., has got jurisdiction to register a complaint, investigate and file charge-sheet. In furtherance with the objects under the Delhi Police Act Delhi Special Police has been established by resolution dated 1st April, 1963 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for the purpose of investigation of a crime, which were handled under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act including special cases under the Defence of India Act and Rules, particularly of hoarding, blackmarketing and profiteering in essential commodities, several economic offences, etc.,. The jurisdiction of the C.B.I., extends to entire Union territory, and in case of the investigation of any offence within the State with the consent of the concerned State Government. Accordingly, in connection with Anti-Corruption, zones have been formed. The jurisdiction of the C.B.I., extends to entire Union territory, and in case of the investigation of any offence within the State with the consent of the concerned State Government. Accordingly, in connection with Anti-Corruption, zones have been formed. Karnataka is in South zone Each zone has a Regional or a Branch office of the C.B.I., headed by the officers specified in the C.B.I. Manual. For Karnataka. D.I.G. is the head of the unit or a branch. Each such divisions are called either branch or unit. It is also not in dispute that the alleged crime had taken place in the State of Karnataka. Clause 7.9 of the CBI Manual states that, the Senior Superintendent of Police would be in-charge of the branch or unit, who is responsible for its work, administration and welfare of the staff. However, Clause 7.16 of the said Manual confers power on the Inspector and Sub-Inspector to make enquiries and investigation and to gather information in respect of cases allotted to them. Clause 10.28 refers to filing of the final report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure It is useful to refer to the said provision, which reads as under: 10.28. After completion of investigation, the FR-I shall be prepared by the I.O. The Law Officer will give his recommendation through the FR-II. The Superintendent of Police would, thereafter, either pass final orders in respect of the cases within his competence or obtain orders from the Competent Authority by sending his recommendations to the DIG concerned. After receipt of orders of the Competent Authority, if it is decided to prosecute the accused, necessary sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure as the case may be, if any required, may be obtained by the Branch SP by sending a S Ps Report and the relevant records to the Competent Authority. On receipt of the sanction, the Investigating Officer will prepare a self-contained draft charge-sheet giving details of investigation conducted and evidence/ charges against each accused person in respect of each allegation(s). On receipt of the sanction, the Investigating Officer will prepare a self-contained draft charge-sheet giving details of investigation conducted and evidence/ charges against each accused person in respect of each allegation(s). The said draft charge sheet shall be vetted by the Law Officer of the Branch and the Branch SP and also by the DIG in important cases and would, thereafter, be finalized and signed by the I.O., and forwarded to the Court by the SP under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure along with the statements of listed witnesses and original relied-upon documents/articles and the sanction for prosecution. In cases where the sanction for prosecution is not required, the I.O. will proceed with the preparation of the draft charge-sheet after receipt of the orders from the Competent Authority and will take other necessary actions as mentioned in this Manual and the instructions issued from time to time. 15. Reading of the said provision indicates that, after the investigation and after receipt of the sanction from the sanctioning authority for the purpose of prosecution of an accused for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Investigating Officer will prepare a self-contained draft charge-sheet giving the details of the investigation conducted and evidence/charge against each accused person in respect of each of the allegations. The said draft charge-sheet shall be vetted by the Law Officer of the Branch and the Branch Superintendent of Police and also by the DIG in important cases and would, thereafter, be finalized and signed by the Investigating Officer and forwarded to the Court by the Superintendent of Police under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure Reading of this provision indicates that, the Investigating Officer will prepare the draft charge-sheet and it will be verified by the Law Officer and the Superintendent of Police, in important cases by the DIG and thereafter, it will be signed by the Investigating Officer and forwarded by the Superintendent of Police. Superintendent of Police, no doubt, is the officer in-charge of the Police Station, however, the investigation is conducted by the Investigating Officer. Both CBI Manual as well as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not specify as to who shall investigate the crime. Superintendent of Police, no doubt, is the officer in-charge of the Police Station, however, the investigation is conducted by the Investigating Officer. Both CBI Manual as well as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not specify as to who shall investigate the crime. Even in case of offence under the Indian Penal Code, there is no bar for investigation of the crime by the officer not being officer in-charge of the Police Station. However, in terms of the provisions of Section 168, he shall report the result of the investigation to the officer in-charge of the Police Station. Thus it is clear that the investigation could be done not only by the officer in-charge of the Station, but also officers subordinate to the said officer. In this case, the Superintendent of Police is the officer in-charge of the Police Station. The investigation is done by the Inspector of Police attached to the said unit or Police Station and he is subordinate officer to the officer in-charge of Police Station. The definition of "officer in-charge of a police station" under Section 2 Clause (o) of Code of Criminal Procedure includes the officer in-charge of the police station, in his absence, the subordinate officer not below the rank of Constable. The investigation conducted by the Inspector is also in consonance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, as in case of any investigation conducted by Delhi Police Act, the officer of the rank of Inspector of Police can investigate any offence punishable under the Act. The authority to investigate the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act is the Inspector. 16. The question is as to whether the charge-sheet or the final report is required to be prepared by the officer in charge or by the Investigating Officer or the charge sheet prepared by the Investigating Officer could be forwarded or furnishing of the charge-sheet prepared by the Investigating Officer would meet the requirement of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure ? 17. Reading of Clause 10.28 of. 17. Reading of Clause 10.28 of. the CBI Manual requires the Investigating Officer to prepare a draft charge-sheet, giving details of the investigation conducted and evidence collected by him against each of the accused, which would be vetted or examined by the Law Officer of the Branch and the Branch Superintendent of Police, in important cases, it is D.I.G. Thereafter, it is finalized and signed by the Investigating Officer and forwarded by the Superintendent of Police. 18. What appears from the provisions of Clause 10.28 is that after the draft charge-sheet is prepared, the Superintendent of Police, who is in-charge of the Police Station, would examine and on his examination, the final report is prepared by the Investigating Officer, and it is forwarded only by the Superintendent of Police, i.e., in consonance with the provisions of Section 173, Sub-section (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 19. In this case the charge-sheet though signed by the Investigating Officer, as required under Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual, it is forwarded by the Superintendent of Police. It is-not the case of the Petitioners that, the Superintendent of Police has not examined the draft final report and materials collected; during the course of the investigation. The forwarding of charge-sheet by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station is not empty formality Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual requires the officer in-charge to verify and approve the final report, it is only thereafter, the final report is signed by the Investigating Officer, who had conducted the investigation and same is forwarded by the Officer in-charge of, the Police Station. No doubt, it is true that, power to prepare final report vests with the officer in-charge of the Police Station and it cannot be delegated. By mere signing of charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer itself may not vitiate the filing of the charge sheet, as the provisions of CBI Manual require the approval of the charge-sheet by the officer in-charge of the Police Station, such approval of draft final report means that the officer in-charge has the final say in the matter and accordingly, only after the approval by the officer in-charge, the final report is signed by the Investigating Officer. - 20. In this context, the following two points required to be considered: (1) Who shall investigate the matter? (2) Who shall present the final report/ charge sheet? 21. - 20. In this context, the following two points required to be considered: (1) Who shall investigate the matter? (2) Who shall present the final report/ charge sheet? 21. Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines the word "investigation" which means, (h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Definition of "investigation" does not refer that the investigation should be conducted only by the officer in-charge of the Police Station. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with receiving information by the Police and power to investigate. Section 154 deals with receiving of the information of a cognizable offence. However, the provisions of Section 154 Sub-section (3) of the Code empowers the investigation either by the officer in-charge of the Police Station or he may direct the investigation to be made by the Police Officer subordinate to him. If the investigation is done by the officer subordinate to the officer in-charge of the Police Station at his direction, such subordinate officer as stipulated under Section 168 of the Code requires to report the final result of the investigation to the officer in-charge of the Police Station. Reading of the provisions' of Sections 157, 161, 165, 166A, 167 and 168 of the Code clearly demonstrate that, the investigation in respect of cognizable offence could be made either by the officer in charge of the Police Station or any other officer as provided. 22. In this case, the offence alleged against the accused is one punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with provisions of Indian Penal Code. Section 17 of the Act specifies the authorized person to investigate the matter. In respect of the officer under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, Clause (a) of the said Section empowers the investigation of the offences under the Act by the Inspector of Police. It is in consonance with the same, even the provisions of Chapter VII of the Manual dealing with the functions of investigating branches/units specifies the duties and responsibilities of Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police under Clause 7.9, who is the person responsible for the functioning of the unit or a branch. It is in consonance with the same, even the provisions of Chapter VII of the Manual dealing with the functions of investigating branches/units specifies the duties and responsibilities of Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police under Clause 7.9, who is the person responsible for the functioning of the unit or a branch. However, Clause 7.16 referring to the powers of the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors empowers the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of the Branches or the Units to investigate and gather the information in respect of the cases allotted to them. It is in consonance with the same, Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual refers to the filing of charge-sheet, it specifically refers that the Investigating Officer, who investigates the matter, shall prepare a draft charge-sheet and submit it to the Superintendent of Police and the Law Officer for the purpose of examination of the same. It is thereafter the Superintendent of Police would forward the final report. Thus, reading of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and the procedure contemplated under Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of CBI Manual makes it abundantly clear that, it is not necessary that the investigation should be done only by the officer in-charge of the Police Station, but it could also be done by any other officer, as stated therein. In this case, the investigation is conducted by the Inspector, who is subordinate to Superintendent of Police and has prepared the draft charge-sheet in terms of Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual and in the light of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provisions of the Act and the CBI Manual, no fault could be found as regard to the investigation conducted by the Inspector of I Police. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Inspector was not authorized to investigate. 23. It is in this context, it is useful to refer to the decision in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2009 SC 984 . It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Inspector was not authorized to investigate. 23. It is in this context, it is useful to refer to the decision in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2009 SC 984 . The Apex Court considering the definition of "investigation" under Section 2 Clause (h) as well as "officer in-charge of Police Station" under Section 2 Clause (o) of Code of Criminal Procedure and further read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act read with Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has observed that the State has the ultimate say in the matter of superintendence of investigation in view of the hierarchy as contemplated under Section 36 of the Code and the, definition of "investigation" as well as the "officer in-charge of Police Station" are inclusive and have expansive meaning and it requires a liberal interpretation. 24. Insofar as the question, who should prepare and present the final report is concerned, under the Code, once the report of the result of the investigation is submitted by the subordinate to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station upon consideration of the report, if he finds that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, he is empowered to release the accused in the custody as contemplated under Section 169 of the Code. Similarly, if it appears to the officer in-charge of the Police Station that there is a sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to proceed against the accused, the officer in-charge of the Police Station shall forward the accused under custody to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. Further reading of Section 173, Sub-section (2) of the Code contemplates that, officer in-charge of Police Station shall forward the Police report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. "Police report" is defined under Section 2 Clause (r) of the Code, which reads as under: (r) "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173." By reading of these provisions of the Code clearly suggests that, insofar as forming an opinion on the basis of the result of the investigation vests with the officer in-charge of Police Station. 25. 25. The Apex Court in the matter of H.N. Rishbud (supra), while considering as regard to the formation of opinion and submission of the report has observed as under: It is important to notice that where the investigation is conducted not by the officer in-charge of the police station but by a subordinate officer (by virtue of one or other of the provisions enabling him to depute such subordinate officer for any of the steps in the investigation) such subordinate officer is to report the result of the investigation to the officer in-charge of the police station. If upon the completion of the investigation it appears to the officer in-charge of the police station that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground, he may decide to release the suspected accused, if in custody, on his executing a bond. If, however, it appears to him that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground, to place the accused on trial he is to take the necessary steps therefore under Section 170 of the Code. In either case, on the completion of the investigation he has to submit a report to the Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code in the prescribed form furnishing various details. .... It is also clear that the final step in the investigation, viz., the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station. There is no provision permitting delegation thereof but only a provision entitling superior officers to supervise or participate under Section 551. From the observation of the Apex Court, it leaves no doubt as regard to formation of an opinion as to whether or not, there is a case to place the accused on trial vests with the officer in-charge of the Police Station. The Apex Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta (supra) while dealing with the investigation conducted under the provisions of the Act by the C.B.I., has dealt with both the questions as regard to, who is the officer in-charge of the Police Station and who shall file the final report and the power of investigation by the person other than the officer in-charge of the Police Station. It is useful to refer to para-26 of the said judgment, which reads as under: 26. It is useful to refer to para-26 of the said judgment, which reads as under: 26. Learned Counsel further submitted that, the I.O. works under the entire CBI hierarchy: that the S.P. works under his supervisory officer of DIG rank in terms of the CBI (Crime) Manual-2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). But this entire administrative structure of the CBI has to function according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of investigation, in the matter of filing the charge-sheet/final report under Section 173(2) and the superior officers of CBI cannot substitute the opinion of the S.P. if that opinion states that a case on the material gathered during the investigation has been made out. Similarly if the S.P. opines on the basis of the material collected that no case is made out, such an opinion cannot be substituted by the higher hierarchy of the officers in CBI. In this connection, it is pointed out that in the present case, the FIR registered is for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. It was urged that mere are no separate provisions in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or the P.C. Act, 1988 as to the manner or the steps to be taken in the investigation of such offences and, therefore, though the investigation is conducted by the CBI, the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would equally apply to such investigation. Learned Counsel submitted that the position of the entire hierarchy of CBI in the matter of filing of police report by the S.P. and formation of the opinion by the S.P. on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation is to be seen in the context of fair and impartial investigation. He is Officer-in-charge of the police station. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that in a Supreme Court monitored investigation the S.P. has to file his report before die Supreme Court only and not before the entire hierarchy of CBI whose only role is to supervise investigation. This hierarchy of CBI, according to the learned Counsel, cannot make the S.P. to change his opinion. They cannot substitute the opinion of the S.P. with their own opinion. This hierarchy of CBI, according to the learned Counsel, cannot make the S.P. to change his opinion. They cannot substitute the opinion of the S.P. with their own opinion. Learned Counsel further contend that in a Supreme Court monitored investigation even where the report of die S.P. is a closure report and the Director. CBI and Attorney General agree with the opinion of the S.P. still it is the duty of the CBI to place the entire material before the Supreme Court and it is for the Court to examine and be satisfied that the authorities have reasonably come to such conclusion. From the observation of the Apex Court at para-26, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police is the officer in-charge of the Police Station and he shall monitor the investigation and file his report- No doubt, that is the case where the investigation was conducted under the supervision of the Apex Court. Even otherwise, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of the CBI Manual also make it clear that the Superintendent of Police is the officer in-charge of the Police Station. He has the control over the said Police Station and he can allot the cases to the Inspector and Sub-Inspector for investigation. The result of the investigation conducted by the subordinate officer required to be reported to the Superintendent of Police. It is in this context, a specific procedure as regard to the filing of the final report/charge-sheet is contemplated under Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual and the said provision requires the officer, who has conducted the investigation, to prepare a self-contained draft charge-sheet, giving details of the investigation conducted and evidence/charges against each accused person in respect of each allegations. Clause 19.13 refers to points to be noted while preparing final report. The said report would be vetted by the Law Officer of the Branch and the Branch Superintendent of Police, in some important cases, the D.I.G. would examine the report of the result of the investigation. It is after the examination by the Branch Superintendent of Police, the final report would be finalized and signed by the Investigating Officer. However, same would be forwarded by the Superintendent of Police in consonance with the provisions of Section 173 of the Code. 26. It is after the examination by the Branch Superintendent of Police, the final report would be finalized and signed by the Investigating Officer. However, same would be forwarded by the Superintendent of Police in consonance with the provisions of Section 173 of the Code. 26. The contention of the Petitioner is that, the final report has not been prepared by the Superintendent of Police and the said power cannot be delegated to any other officer. No doubt, the final report or the final opinion is of the officer in-charged the Police Station. However, reading of provisions of Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual and forwarding of the charge-sheet In this case by the Superintendent of Police is in consonance with the provisions of Section 173 of the Code, it does not create any doubt as regard to preparing of final report is concerned. The Investigating Officer only prepares a draft charge-sheet and it is finalized by the officer in-charge of the Police Station. The finalized report is signed by the Investigating Officer. It does not mean that, the officer in-charge of the Police Station (Superintendent of Police in this case) has not formed his final opinion on consideration of the report and the material. Fact that the Clause 10.28 suggests that the Superintendent of Police shall examine the draft charge-sheet containing the. evidence, details of investigation, charges alleged against the accused and it is thereafter, the final report is signed by the Investigating Officer, clearly shows that the final opinion is formed by the officer in-charge of the Police Station. Petitioner has not alleged that the preparation of the final report is not done in consonance with the provisions of the Code or the provisions of the CBI Manual. The charge-sheet discloses that, it fulfills the requirement of Section 173 Sub-section (2) of the Code and Clause 19.13 of the CBI Manual. Section 173 Sub-section (2) does, not by itself suggest that the final report to be signed by the officer in-charge of the Police Station. It merely refers the forwarding of the charge-sheet to the jurisdictional Magistrate. However, reading of the provisions of Sections 169 and 170 of the Code shows that, officer in-charge of the Police Station is required to form his opinion as to whether the accused should be put on trial or not. It merely refers the forwarding of the charge-sheet to the jurisdictional Magistrate. However, reading of the provisions of Sections 169 and 170 of the Code shows that, officer in-charge of the Police Station is required to form his opinion as to whether the accused should be put on trial or not. A harmonious reading of the provisions of Sections 169, 170, 173 Sub-section (2) of the Code read with Clause 10.28 of the CBI Manual, the formation of final opinion by the officer in-charge of the Police Station is must. It is not the case of the Petitioner that, draft charge-sheet was not placed before the Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police has not examined the same. If that is not the allegation, it certainly makes it clear that after the investigation, the Investigating Officer has prepared the draft report, which is finalized by the officer in-charge of the Police Station and thereafter it has been forwarded by the Superintendent of Police and this certainly complies with the requirement of Section 173 Sub-section (2) of the Code and also Clause "10.28 of the CBI Manual. Though it is seriously contended that, the final report is prepared by the Investigating Officer and not by the officer in-charge of the Police Station except referring to the signature appearing on the final report, no other material is placed before the Court to show that the officer in-charge of the Police Station (in this case, 'Superintendent of Police) has not verified and opined for filing of the charge-sheet. 27. In the light of the above discussion and the provisions of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Delhi Police Act and the provisions of the CBI Manual, I hold that the investigation done by the Inspector of Police (CBI) is .valid and further hold that the final report/charge-sheet has been validly presented before the jurisdictional Court. The order of the trial Court does not call for interference. Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of die C.B.I. 28. In the circumstances, the Criminal Petition fails and same-is dismissed.