Anti-Corruption Branch can investigate corruption charges against Police personnel: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected the contention of the Delhi Police personnel that the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) Police Station would not have jurisdiction to investigate into offenses pertaining to Central Government employees, i.e Sub Inspector of Delhi Police as it falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that "any Central Government official accused of corruption cannot get away with not being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Branch. When a complaint is made to the authority in charge, it is that authority's responsibility to investigate the allegations. They may, after due diligence, refer the matter to the appropriate authority for investigation, but they retain the right to investigate the matter at the time of filing the complaint."

The bench relied on the High Court's decision in Anil Kumar v. GNCT of Delhi (2015), which held that since Delhi Police personnel serve as citizens in the NCTD and their functions are substantially and essentially related to the affairs of the GNCTD, the ACB of the GNCTD has jurisdiction to entertain and act on a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of a Delhi Police Officer or official, and to investigate.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Sub Inspector (SI) Johnson Jacob accused of accepting bribes, seeking quashing and setting aside of the order on charge passed by Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi in which charges were framed under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The complainant, Ravneet Singh in the case had applied for an arms license, and it was claimed that the petitioner visited him to inquire about it.

Singh’s case is that the SI had asked him to pay a bribe of Rs. 20,000 for clearing his report for grant of Arms license and after negotiation he reduced the amount to Rs. 10,000.

Singh handed over Rs.1000 to the SI, recorded the conversation, and later provided a CD of the same. It was further alleged that the SI contacted him to meet at Vikaspuri police station to collect the remaining balance of Rs. 9,000.

Following a personal search of the SI, 10 GC notes of Rs. 500 and 4 notes of Rs. 1,000 were recovered from his right hand, totaling Rs. 9,000, and the serial numbers of the recovered currency notes tallied with the serial numbers noted in the preraid proceedings.

The SI moved the High Court for the quashing and setting aside of the order on charge dated March 10, 2021 claiming that he had been exonerated in departmental proceedings and those criminal proceedings against him could not continue relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr, (2020).

It was also claimed that he is a Sub Inspector (SI) in the Delhi Police, and thus the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi Government lacks jurisdiction to investigate an offense committed by a SI working for the Delhi Police, which is overseen by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

From the departmental inquiry, Court noted that Singh himself testified during the departmental investigation that he offered a bribe in exchange for timely verification, which the SI denied.

Under the circumstances, the recording of the demand and subsequent filing of the FIR by the complainant appeared vitiated and untrustworthy, the Court observed.

The court opined, "The departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are a mirror image of each other, and the accused has been exonerated on merits in the departmental inquiry, and not due to minor technicalities or irregularities, on the same set of facts the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed because the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is much lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings."

Conclusively, rejecting the SI’s contention, Court held that the Anti-Corruption Branch would have jurisdiction to investigate his case based on a complaint made to them and any Central government official accused of corruption cannot get away with the mere technicality.

Case Title: Johnson Jacob v. State