It is definitely a matter of profound concern that none other than one of the oldest and most esteemed High Courts in India that is the Madras High Court with its Madurai Bench in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shanmugavel vs State in CRL.A(MD).Nos.179, 189, 190, 204, 207, 208, 216 & 224 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.6966 of 2019 that was reserved on 25.7.2024 and then finally pronounced on 28.04.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that the working culture of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has deteriorated to the point where it faces widespread public criticism over biased investigations. This is definitely beyond a straw of doubt a very serious observation that cannot be afforded to ever taken lightly by anyone!
This alone explains why the Madurai Bench has proceeded to issue a slew of commendable directions to the CBI which definitely must be implemented most earnestly in letter and spirit. No denying it! We need to also note that the Bench was most unequivocal in holding that the Trial Court was wrong to acquit only some of the accused when the material cited against all the accused were all largely the same.
At the very outset, this robust, rational, remarkable and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice KK Ramakrishnan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Since these criminal appeals are arising out of the same crime number, these cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
As we see, the Bench then states in para 2 that:
Convicted accused in C.C.No.24 of 2012, on the file of the Special Court for CBI cases in Madurai, have filed these appeals before this Court, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against them.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating briefly on the facts of the case stating that:
According to the prosecution, A1 was the chief manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Palayankottai Branch. He and other accused conspired together and misappropriated the bank fund to the tune of more than 2 crores of Rupees. A1 granted loan to the remaining accused without following the guidelines issued by the bank. The sum and substance of the charge is that A1 sanctioned loan to the fictitious company and disbursed various loans, namely, cash credit, hypothecation loan, term loan, vehicle loan, packing credit against letter of credit loan to those who were arraigned as the remaining accused. It is also alleged that all the accused produced forged valuation certificate and obtained whopping loan amount, some of the accused got the loan furnishing over-valuation certificate. They have also diverted loan. With the said allegation, the FIR was registered against number of accused and the final report was filed only against 13 accused. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.24 of 2012, by the learned II Additional District Court for CBI cases, Madurai.
3.1.After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 120 B r/w 420 of IPC 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 471, 420 and 468 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
3.2.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 83 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.83 and exhibited 167 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.167.
3.3.When the accused were examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating evidence against them, they denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against them.
3.4. A5 filed a detailed explanation and also he examined himself as D.W.1 and deposed before the Court that he obtained the loan on furnishing all the required documents and that the investigation officer without properly conducting investigation filed the final report against him despite having been paid the entire loan amount. Apart from that, he also marked exhibit D1 to D20. On the side of the Court, exhibit C1 was marked. No material object was marked.
3.5. The learned trial Judge, after considering all the evidence, convicted A1, A2, A3, A4, A7, A8, A11 and A13 and acquitted the A5, A6, A9, A10 and A12. All the convicted accused filed appeals before this Court.
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 9.6 holding that:
In this case, the CBI registered the case on the basis of the source information. In this case, all the loan amounts were already settled much earlier to the inspection conducted by the bank officials. The bank officials conducted motivated inspection to corner the particular bank officials and illegally made the inspection without any debtor and creditor relationship. Once the loan was closed much earlier to the inspection and reopening of the said closed transaction without any legal material relating to the misuse of the loan amount, the bank authorities are disentitled to conduct the inspection after the shifting of the business place, hospital etc.,
They also obtained inspection report from the business rival of the each accused. To the extent of obtaining the valuation certificate from the person who has been deleted from the panel of valuers. The investigating agency is duty bound to verify the same and restrain themselves from filing case of this nature. In the considerable opinion of this court they filed the final report without any material to substantiate their allegation. Absolutely, this court finds no material to constitute the offence from the prosecution evidence.
This court finds lapse in every stage and this is a classical case to show the CBI had conducted a shoddy investigation. Firstly, the CBI have not adduced any evidence that the loan amount was not utilized. It is not the case of the bank authority that the loan was not settled prior to the registration of the case. The CBI has not produced any material to show the amount was misused. Therefore in all aspect, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.
It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 10 that:
Accordingly all the appeals are allowed on the following terms:
- The judgment passed by the II Additional District Court for CBI cases, Madurai in C.C.No.24 of 2012 dated 05.04.2019, is set aside.
- The appellants are acquitted from all the charges in C.C.No.24 of 2012 dated 05.04.2019, passed by the II Additional District Court for CBI cases, Madurai
- Fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith.
- Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
Finally and far most significantly, we see that the Bench then concludes drawing the curtains by encapsulating in para 11 what really constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment by postulating precisely that:
CBI is the premier investigating agency of this country. People of this country have more faith in them. Whenever any serious issue/controversy crops up people make vociferous voice asking for CBI Probe since they have cent percent faith that the CBI officers are upright officers. Further they have faith over the working of the CBI that they would discharge the duty impartially uninfluenced by any source. Nowadays the working culture of the CBI has reduced to the level of being criticized by everyone for their lopsided investigation. This court during its last two portfolios was assigned with the cases relating to the CBI. All the CBI cases including the appeal against acquittal, appeal against conviction, Criminal Revision Case against the discharge petition, Criminal Original Petition to quash the criminal proceedings based on the CBI investigation were heard by this Court during that time. More than 60 Criminal Appeals were listed before this Court for final hearing. During the course of the hearing, the learned Senior counsel appearing for accused in number of cases unanimously submitted that CBI have conducted preliminary enquiry, detailed enquiry and registered the case. But, at the time of registration of the FIR, they have intentionally omitted the prime accused and registered the cases only against some accused and conducted investigation and filed the final report only against the selected accused. In number of cases, they had followed differed yardsticks against the similarly placed accused. In some cases, they had deleted the accused and added them as witnesses on the ground that the accused settled the entire due amount. But, in the similar set of cases, the accused who had already settled the amount had been added as accused, without adding as a witness. In most of the cases, even though strong materials were found, the CBI deleted the high level officers and arrayed only low grade officers. In almost all the cases, there is a chasm in the chain of events due to the deletion of number of main accused. They would collect voluminous record and omit to collect the material record even though they have knowledge about the said record. In number of cases, even they have not obtained the handwriting expert’s opinion and other scientific expert’s opinion. Even in number of cases, there is corruption allegation against the officers of the CBI. In one case, one of the party in person produced the authenticated electronic evidence to prove the demand of bribe amount by a CBI Officer. In the said case, CBI high level officers had registered a case against the said CBI officer and initiated departmental proceeding.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. In the case of the trap, they have not even used the modern technology to entrap the accused. Therefore, question of fair investigation is in peril. This has eroded the faith of people with CBI. People have more faith in the Special Investigation Department than in the Courts that the Special Investigation Officers will be honest, upright and impartial and their conduct should be pure as mother’s milk. It should regain the said faith so that it does not cause any harm to the reputation attached with them.
With heavy heart, this court observes the intentional lapse of the part of the CBI in arraying the unwanted accused, continuing unwarranted investigation, deleting the important accused, not examining material witnesses, not collecting the scientific evidence relating to hand writing etc., improper supervisory mechanism by director of the CBI, adding the similarly placed persons as witnesses concentrating on collection of immaterial particulars and omitting to collect material particulars have become the order of the day. All the above shows that the CBI officers think they have sky high powers and no one can question them.
Hence, people feel their working culture is plummeting down and this Court also finds the said allegations have some reason and, this Court in order to restore the trust of the people over the CBI, is inclined to give the following suggestions to the director of CBI to have a relook and revamp their programme of investigation to regain the original image in the vision of the people of India.:-
- The Director shall meticulously supervise the array of the accused in the FIR and final report.
- The Director shall consciously supervise the progress of the investigation constantly watching the collection of the materials and omission of the materials.
- The Director shall appoint a separate legal team within their domain to indoctrinate the investigating officer about the legal principles formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time and ensure the suitability of the registration of the case in order to avoid registration of innocuous cases.
- The Director shall take appropriate measures to equip the investigating officer with scientific advancement.
In sum, the Chennai Bench of the Madras High Court has exposed clearly the chinks in the armour in CBI’s way of functioning. It is high time and the CBI Director must definitely pay heed to what the Bench has directed so clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case and work accordingly as directed hereinabove! There can be certainly just no denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
