Full Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. Sri Dinesh Kumar, Senior Counsel for the first respondent filed statement of objections to the petition.
2. The entangled messy facts projects interesting questions of law relating to the propriety and jurisdiction of the petitioner to investigate the crime in question. It is not uncommon to find under the statute a concurrent jurisdiction conferred on several agencies to investigate the crimes. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is one such instance conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the several named authorities to investigate.
3. In the present case, the first respondent seized 1.75 kg. of contraband heroin from the accused persons. After completion of investigation, a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. is filed before the Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, which is numbered as Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999.
4. One P.B. Nawaz Khan, accused 2 challenged the prosecution against him alleging false implications. The Supreme Court in Cri. S.L.P. No. 2958 of 2000 directed an enquiry by CBI who after enquiry submitted a report showing that P.B. Nawaz Khan was innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Accordingly, the proceedings against him came to be quashed. The trial of Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999 is being continued against the other accused persons. In the meantime, Nawaz Khan filed a private complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in M.P. No. Nil of 1999 against the second respondent herein and 4 other accused persons alleging conspiracy on their part to falsely implicate him in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999 and alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 195, 196, 201, 211, 120B and 307 read with Section 511 of the IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation to Station House Office of Voliyyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.
5. The CBCID of Kerala Police took over the investigation, In the course of investigation much light is thrown upon the guilt of the second respondent herein and the complicity of the other accused persons who are arrayed as accused in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999.
6. It is said that incriminating material collected by CBCID, Kerala is very much relevant for prosecution in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999 on the file of Special Court at Bangalore. Therefore, CBCID, Kerala, approached the Special Court at Bangalore for staying the proceedings in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999 on the ground that the investigation conducted by them is yet to be concluded.
7. The Special Judge, Bangalore, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, present petition is filed for setting aside the impugned order and also to set aside the proceedings in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999. Further requests for permission to investigate into the crime.
8. Heard Sri M.T. Nanaiah, the Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh, Senior Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Sri P.P. Joy for respondent 2 at length. Apart from the questions that are raised by the parties several important relevant legal questions arise for consideration in determination of this case.
9. The provisions of Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act gives concurrent jurisdiction to several named authorities to conduct investigation and to launch prosecution in respect of offence committed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. In this case in respect of the offence in question the first respondent took notice of the same and after investigation launched a prosecution by a private complaint, it cannot be said that the CBCID has no jurisdiction at all to investigate into the crimes committed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act but in respect of the offence in question, the investigation is already completed and prosecution is launched before a competent jurisdictional Court by the first respondent. The rules of discipline governing the investigation do not permit the other concurrent agency to take up investigation in respect of the same crime to launch a separate prosecution against the accused when the other competent agency has already launched a prosecution, lest such a procedure would only expose the accused to the risk of the multiple prosecutions. I do not mean to say that whatever material collected in the course of investigation by CBCID, Kerala which is pertinent and relevant for proving the guilt of the accused in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999 has to be glossed over and ignored. The first respondent and CBCID are concurrent agencies and it is required in law that there should be a harmonious co-ordination in their activities, any additional incriminating material collected in the course of investigation by CBCID, Kerala has to be taken note of by the first respondent and to be produced as additional material in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999. If need be, the first respondent in co-operation with the CBCID, Kerala can invoke the provision of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and with the permission of the Court, a further investigation could be continued and further reports could be filed. However, the Court while granting such permission an opportunity should be granted to the accused and orders are to be passed in accordance with law.
10. I also find no conflict in the position of law for the police to file final report in the private complaint of Nawaz Khan filed before the Thiruvananthapuram Court. The offences mentioned in the private complaint are totally distinct and unrelated to the offence mentioned in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999. Nawaz Khan allege conspiracy and false implication in the case by the co-accused in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999. No allegations of mala fides are imputed against the first respondent. There appears to be no proper co-ordination between the Kerala Police and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. During the course of investigation of the offences alleged in the private complaint of Nawas Khan, if the CBCID, Kerala have tread upon any evidence relating to Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999, the evidence to that extent may not be relevant for launching prosecution in the private complaint relating to the offences mentioned in the private complaint of Nawaz Khan, but evidence that is helpful for proving the guilt of the accused in Spl. C.C No. 189 of 1999, could be transported and processed in the legally required manner to prove the guilt of the accused in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999.
11. Sri M.T. Nanaiah submits that apart from second respondent there are other accused who have complicity with the commission of the crime in Spl. C.C. No. 3.89 of 1999. If there is any such material and in the final report if those persons are to be arrayed as an accused, the Trial Court could be moved for passing appropriate orders in. Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999.
12. In view of the position of law discussed above, I find the request for staying the proceedings under Section 210 of the Cr. P.C. is totally unwarranted and the reliefs prayed for in this petition are unwarranted. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. Before parting, I find that strange methods are adopted by the D.R.I. in launching the prosecution in Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999 by way of private complaint. It is not only in this case, I find in several other cases, the N.C.B. or D.R.I. adopt the procedure of launching prosecution by way of private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. Although it may not be technically wrong for them to adopt the procedure but not prudent and wise to effectively conduct the prosecution. Under the provisions of Sections 51, 52, 52A and 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, multiple named agencies are invested with the powers officer in charge of the Police Station for investigation. That being the position, it is not necessary for officers of D.R.I. empowered as Station House Office to adopt the procedure under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. Any information received at the earliest could be communicated to the Competent Magistrate as an FIR and further investigation could be conducted, statements under Section 161(3) could be recorded. All the necessary investigations of subjecting the articles to scientific investigation could be carried out and final report under Section 173(2) could be filed. Such a procedure of investigation and filing final report would be to the advantage of the prosecution. In fact Section 53A gives a status of substantive value to the statements recorded by the non-police agencies and are admissible in evidence even if the witnesses turn hostile. Therefore, recording of statements under Section 161(3) taking signature of the deponents is always to the advantage of the prosecution conducted by non-police agency under Section 53. It is therefore the non-police agency should take note of the useful relevant legal provisions in conducting the investigation and in launching the prosecution in an effective manner.
14. For the reasons and discussions made above, the petition is disposed of.
15. Sri Dinesh, Senior Standing Counsel makes an unconditional statement that the D.R.I. would extend fullest co-operation to the petitioner and whatever material that is produced would be legally processed and placed by way of additional investigation reports as required under law.