The Bombay High Court, a couple of weeks back, expressed strong disapproval of the way the Economic Offences Wing, a specialized agency to investigate financial crimes, has dragged its feet in filing a chargesheet in a four year old case where more than 600 investors are awaiting justice.
Division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K Chavan observed –
“There are more than 600 Investors in the said case. Four years have lapsed since the Registration of the C.R. Despite four years having lapsed, the EOW has not bothered to file a charge-sheet, till date. Infact, pursuant to several orders passed by this Court to give full effect to the MPID Act, the Competent Authority filed an application before the trial Court, pursuant to which the properties were attached and orders were passed to auction the properties.”
Case Background
On October 7, 2020 an FIR was registered with Vinoba Bhave Police station in Mumbai for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 34, 420, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act). The said C.R was transferred to EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai, on the same day i.e. on October 7, 2020 for the same offences and was re-numbered as C.R No. 31/2020.
Court’s Observations
The bench said-
“We are extremely unhappy with the manner in which the EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai has taken four years to file even a basic Charge-sheet against the accused. Whether it is the investors, which in this case are more than 600 or the accused, all of them have a legitimate expectation to see that the investigation concludes at the earliest. Investigation cannot be permitted to linger on for years, keeping the investors in the lurch, not knowing what is the outcome of the case. There are investors who are senior citizens and who have invested lakhs of rupees.”
Court asserted that it is the duty of the police to see that the investigation is completed, at the earliest and is taken to its logical end. Infact, the law is well settled that even after the first charge-sheet is filed, it is always open for the police to continue with the investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and file supplementary charge-sheets.
Empathizing with the investors who lost their hard earned money , the bench said-
“In a sense, we feel that the police have betrayed the investors of their legitimate right of seeing that the investigation is completed expeditiously, in a timely and able manner. Instead, the investors are constrained to run from pillar to post, before all the authorities, engage advocates, when infact, it is the duty of the authorities in law to take appropriate steps.”
Action Against Investigators?
The bench pointed out to Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar, appearing on behalf of EOW, that under the provisions of Section 218 of the IPC, action that can be taken against the concerned officers for deliberately and for reasons best known to them, failing to file the charge-sheet within a reasonable time. Court noted-
“We are afraid that this was one such case, where we could have even invoked the said section and initiated prosecution against the concerned officers or could have even directed departmental inquiry against the concerned persons.”
Conclusion
However, the bench refrained from doing the same, after Mr. Venegavkar made a statement that charge-sheet will be filed in the said case for all the offences mentioned in the FIR.
Court further probed Mr. Venegavkar that if the police (EOW) was not interested in investigating the case and in filing the charge-sheet, even suggesting that they could transfer the said investigation to Special Investigating Team (SIT), having regard to the number of investors, and the delay of almost four years by the EOW, Mumbai, in concluding the investigation, for reasons best known to them.
Finally, Mr. Venegavkar, on instructions of the higher-ups of the EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai, stated that charge-sheet will be filed within four weeks, both under the provisions of the IPC as well as the provisions of the MPID i.e. the Sections invoked in the FIR.
Author: Nitish Kashyap