Central Bureau of Investigation, formation, functions and facts

Introduction

Let us initially consider what made our nation even think to develop such an investigative bureau. This carries us back to the time of the Second World War. The Special Police Establishment was established during World War II when a huge number of funds were being employed in the war and there appeared an astronomic potential of corruption between the officers administering with the supplies. This gave an opportunity for uncertainties and presented the government of India give an Executive Order in 1941 to form Special Police Establishment under the DIG ^[1]in the administration of war. But, not surprisingly, the crime and bribery did not see an end and neither did the demand for the central government power to investigate such cases. Hence, The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act came into force in 1946. The administration of SPE was assigned to the Home Department and its duties were expanded to cover all the Departments of the Government of India. It exerted its control over the union territories and could be continued to the states with the approval of the concerned states. The SPE was then put under the charge of the Director of Intelligence Bureau. It was in 1948 that a post of Inspector-General of Police, SPE was performed and the bureau was placed under his charge. The powerful CBI was named on 1-4-1963 by the Home Ministry of the Government of India^[2]. This was created to increase the regarding fields of investigation like the violation of the Central financial laws, frauds in Government Departments and PSUs and other serious offences. In 1987, two groups were formed in the CBI known as Anti-Corruption Division and Special Crimes division. Due to the tremendous workload compared to bank frauds and economic offences, a separate Economic Offences unit was created in 1994. Since then, the CBI has three investigation cells, namely, Anti- Corruption Division, Special Crimes division and Economic Offences Division. So, that’s how the present-day CBI appeared into living and this is what the agency is in a nutshell.

How does the CBI function?

Now, let us proceed on to how it works; its functionalities and performances. They all begin with one thing—Grievance. The grievances may come from any media and should cast some light on corruption, violations or wrongdoing on the part of a public assistant(s). Grievances can come from multiple sources, be it an executive authority, intelligence collected by the CBI and by Police officials and the grievances obtained by them, Departmental reviews and property confirmation surveys, annual property records, analysis of events published under the transferred rules, a regular inspection of accounts, inspection reports of accounts of government, PSUs and other corporate organizations, reports of political committees, Public accounts Committee and the Committee on the PUs, Transactions of the two houses of Parliament. Objections can be in paper or verbal. Despite the news that resembles in newspapers or any other factors can be viewed as a complaint. The Central Vigilance Commission placed under the CVC Act, 2003 ^[3]has been completely approved with the administration over the functioning of CBI particularly in connection to the offences conducted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ^[4]with regard to specific kinds of officers considered. It is the designated bureau of the government to accept such complaints.

Any action that is to be exercised upon the accusations depends upon the type of the complaint. Depending on their strength, it may be required for the departmental examination, it may be directed to file or drop the grievance without further query, and matter may be delivered over to the CBI if the cases are of serious nature.

Three wings of CBI

GOW (General Offences Wing): It resembles after cases concerning accusations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding assets higher than what your salary concedes, accusations concerning examining from the non-official persons or review of non-governmental records, cases of complex nature including subjects of law and facts. This department is also authorized to launch criminal proceedings in several events.
EOW (Economic Offences Wing): It distributes with cases that involve the injury of several economic/ fiscal laws. Bank frauds, financial frauds, and import-export and foreign exchange crimes, large-scale importation may be involved in financial misdeeds.
CCIC (Cyber Crimes investigation cell): This unit began working smoothly in 2005 and it examines cybercrimes for they have been developing day by day and seldom is the reality of such violations remarkably dangerous thereby requiring some specific application.

The objections listed are regularly assigned to these categories based on the quality of such criticism. In fact, they’ve even commenced examining the crimes of general nature. This involves murder, terrorism, kidnapping etc. This also holds specific crimes of emotional crimes, crimes perpetrated by the mafias and the underworld etc.

Can we ask a CBI inquiry into a subject about which we care?

Now we examine the question earlier posed in this article. Are we or are we not authorized to call them for inquiry in our personal circumstances. If yes, how? This takes us back to 2001. On 4th January 2001, Abdul Rahman Mondal^[5], accompanying many craftsmen of a political party, had been visiting several party tents set up by their party at Garbeta in Midnapore area of the State of West Bengal. Some of the artists and Abdul determined to go to their homes from one such installation. When they transferred Abdul’s house, some men, 50 or 60 in number, hit them with guns and grenades, which appeared in many accidents. Abdul ran to emerge from the place of experience of the heinous attack, hid, and observed the whole story from where he was covering. He remained a written complaint in Garhbeta Police Station on 4th January 2001 itself but the FIR was recorded only on 5th January 2001. On 8th January, Director General of Police, West Bengal organized CID (Crime Investigation Department) to get over the probe of the case. A writ petition was registered in High Court of Judicature at Calcutta by the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal declaring that, although 11 persons died that night and 3 months have transpired since the episode, yet, except 2 persons, no other person named in the FIR has been restrained and that no dangerous trials have been made to recognize the sufferers. In reality, till that moment, the police have not been able to find out if the disappeared persons are dead or living. They claimed that the police was controlled by the ruling party of the state and were, therefore, negotiating with the correct inquiry. Their request was to assign the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, an autonomous agency.

The High Court, after understanding the facts asserted above, concluded that it had a powerful limitation about the state police concerning the equality and integrity of the examination and also, recognizing the importance of the matter, it should be delivered over to the CBI. State, abused by the judgment of the High Court, asked for special leave to retry before this Court. The leave was awarded in September 2001. When the subject came up to a two-judge Bench on 8th November 2001, it was of the belief that the material is of great interest to the public and shall be settled ere the Chief Justice of India for the passing of right orders and through addressing the subject to be installed before a much bigger bench. When the topic came before a three-judge bench directed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, they decided to put things of this nature before a Constitution Bench. The state attorney resembling on behalf of West Bengal declared that there is a full limitation on parliament’s legislative power in enacting any law authorizing police of one state to examine an offence charged in the other state, without the consent of that state. He also recommended that division of power between the three organs of the state needs each one of these organs to margin themselves within the areas committed to it by the Constitution and not act against the crime or opposition to the quality of the Constitution. He also held that if the parliament was to establish a law that permits police of one state to review in the area of another state without its permission, such a law would be wrong.

So, the federal structure required that the Constitution not be confused by arranging any such thing. CBI, implying an alien and established under the DPSE to review in the topics related to Delhi and the Union States is regarded as police of another state. Long story short, The Solicitor General of India resembling on account of the union government decided to satisfy the Bench that rights asserted under the Constitution are not efficient when they are immediately in opposition with a person’s fundamental rights. Learning both parties, the Bench came to the following resolutions.

The fundamental rights, stated in part III of the Constitution, are essential and cannot be excluded by any constitutional and lawful allocation. Any law that compresses or revokes such rights will violate the fundamental formation doctrine.
According to Article 21^[6], the state has a responsibility to require the human rights of a citizen contributing for fair and impartial investigation against any person involved of a cognizable offense, including its own police.
A command by the High Court, in the employ of its authority under the Article 226 of the Constitution^[7], to the CBI to examine a cognizable offense stated to have performed under the territory of a state without the permission of that state will not hit upon the governmental structure of the constitution nor will it infringe the theory of separation of the powers. The Courts and High Courts have not only the authority but a responsibility to preserve the fundamental liberties devotedly.
When the DPSE act itself presents that it can study in the issues of another state when constrained to its approval, the court can also use its constitutional power of judicial investigation to direct it to take up the research within the scope of the state. The power of Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be governed by Section 6 of DPSE Act. Also, the power of constitutional analysis in no way violates the general construction of the state.

Regarding these results, it is discovered that we can call CBI for inquiry in our personal interest when the state police fail to be qualified. But we cannot call them for our petty matters and just on the grounds of doubt or because we are not affected by the way our local police are reviewing.

[1 ]Source link .
[2] (See, Resolution No. 4/31/61-T/MHA)
[3] Source link.
[4] The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India.
[5] Equivalent citations: (2001) 2 CALLT 526 HC, 2001 (2) CHN 98, 2001 CriLJ 2307
[6] Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
[7] Power of High Courts to issue certain writs