'CBI Officers Think They Have Sky High Powers, No One Can Question Them': Madras HC Suggests Revamping Probe Agency's Image

Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the manner of CBI's working, in arraying unwanted accused, continuing unwarranted investigation, deleting important accused, not examining material witnesses, etc showed that the CBI officers thought themselves to have sky-high powers and could not be questioned by anyone. The court added that the common people have been feeling that the working culture of the CBI had been plummeting down.

“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 court said.

The court suggested the Director to meticulously supervise the array of accused in the FIR and the final report. The court added that the Director shall consciously supervise the progress of the investigation, constantly watching the collection of the materials and the omission of the materials. The court also asked the Director to appoint a separate legal team within their domain to instruct the investigating officer about the legal principles time to time and to ensure the suitability of registering the case. The court also asked the Director to take appropriate measures to equip the investigating officer with the scientific advancements.

The court remarked that CBI was a premier investigating agency in the country, and the people had much faith in the agency that they asked for a CBI probe whenever a serious issue or a controversy cropped up. The court however also noted that nowadays, the working culture of the CBI had reduced to being criticised by everyone, for their lopsided investigation.

“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,” the court noted.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Chief Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank and others who were convicted for conspiring and misappropriating the bank fund amounting to almost Rs. 2 crore. It was alleged that the Chief Manager had granted loan to the accused without following the guidelines issued by the bank.

The court, however, noted that though the bank had alleged violation of KYC norms, the prosecution had not proved any circular of KYC norms prevailing at the time. Similarly, the court noted that though the bank had claimed that there was forgery of valuation certificate, there was no evidence to prove the same.

The court also noted that it was the duty of the loan officer to conduct pre-sanction inspection and post-sanction inspection, but neither the loan officer nor the Manager (credit) had been arraigned as accused. Thus, the court opined that the CBI had conducted a biased investigation without arraying all the bank officers involved.

The court also noted that the bank had conducted inspection into the loans after its closing and without any basis, the CBI had filed the final report. The court added thar the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the trial court had acquitted some of the accused but had failed to acquit the present appellants who were similarly placed.

“The facts of the convicted appellant and acquitted appellant are similar and similar accusation were made in both against the acquitted appellants and convicted appellants. Same set of evidence was adduced. Therefore the learned Trial Judge committed illegality in not acquitting the appellant by appreciating the similar evidence properly. Therefore in all aspects the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charged offences against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt,” the court noted.

The court also accused the CBI of following different yardsticks to different companies. The court thus held that both the investigating agency and the trial judge have not acted in a fair manner. Thus, the court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Veera Associates, Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for M/s. Lajapathi Roy Associates, Mrs. S. Devasena, Mr. V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. M. S. Johnny Basha, Mr. R. M. Somasundaram, Mr. G. Mohan Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M. Karunanithi, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI

Case Title: Shanmugavel v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 158

Case No: Crl. A.(MD) Nos 179, 189, 190, 204, 207, 208, 216 & 224 of 2019