B.R. Bathla vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Case Name	B.R. Bathla vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 17 November 1987
Citation	ILR 1988 KAR 406
Case Number	Crl. Rev. Petn. 612 Of 1987
Date of Judgment	17 November 1987
Court	Karnataka High Court
Case Type	Rev. Petition
Petitioner	Mrs B. R. Batla
Respondent	Central Bureau of Investigation, India
Bench	Justice Kulkarni
Referred Law	Section 250(1) of CrPCIndustrial Development Regulation Act, 1951Companies ActSection 156 of CrPC

Keywords: Companies Act, Section 156, Section 250(1), Industrial Development Regulation Act, 1951, Section 258 of CrPC

INTRODUCTION: 

The case of Br Bathla v CBI revolves around a significant legal dispute that captured the attention of both legal experts and the general public alike. This case, which unfolded in 1987, involves intricate legal intricacies and crucial implications for the parties involved. The central focus of this case lies in the clash between the prominent industrialist Br Bathla and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), shedding light on the limits of investigative powers, and the pursuit of justice. Through this case analysis, we aim to delve into the key facts, legal arguments, and outcomes of the Br Bathla v CBI case, exploring the wider implications it holds for the Indian legal system and society as a whole.

BACKGROUND Of CASE: 

Actually, this is a modification made by C.W. Bathla in response to the order issued by the Special Judge, Bangalore, in 1987, requiring him to demonstrate his justification for not being compelled to compensate the accused under Section 250(1) of CrPC. Into deeper context A-1 was a business that has been authorised by the Companies Act, and it has branches in Bangalore, Nagpur, New Delhi, and Hyderabad in addition to its head office in Calcutta. A 1 has been in the business of producing sprinkler equipment and aluminium pipes. Additionally, it was involved in the stocking, supplying, selling, and distribution of thin-walled mild steel galvanised pipes made by A-8 at its Secunderabad factory. A-1 Company also promotes A-8, a company that is registered under the Companies Act. At their factory in Andhra Pradesh, they are producing galvanised pipes for sprinkler irrigation equipment in accordance with Industrial Licence No. 225 (82) dated 29-11-1982 issued by the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, New Delhi.

A-1 through A-10 formed a criminal conspiracy in Bangalore, Calcutta, and Secunderabad to supply galvanised pipes for drinking water delivery in violation of the requirements of the aforementioned licence, which was issued on November 29, 1982. A-7 and A-8 also concurred to write the project report. Leaflets advertising the sale of galvanised pipes made by A-8 on behalf of A-1, which are used for transporting drinking water among other uses, were produced, published, and distributed by A-2 through A-4, A-9, and A-10. As a result, all of the accused worked together to commit crimes punishable by law, in accordance with Section 7(2) of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955, Section 24(1)(iv) of the Industrial Development Regulation Act of 1951, and Clause 3 of the Mild Steel Tubes (Excluding Seamless Tubes and Tubes according to API Specifications) (Quality Control) Order.

The present petitioner filed a private complaint to a special court and convinced the Judge to hand the investigation process to CBI under section 156 of CrPC. The accused persons were presented in court and there they presented an application under section 205 of CrPC. After reviewing their application, the honourable Judge decided that though there is no ground of accusation and the accused are entitled to discharge under section 258 of CrPC, he gave extra time to prosecutors and moved this case to a hearing. In its comprehensive ruling of 29-8-1987, the court below determined that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case and lacked good faith in its efforts to prosecute the defendants. Consequently, taking that viewpoint into consideration, it gave an order under Section 258 Cr.P.C. freeing the accused, so discharging them. While doing so, it also believed that the prosecution lacked good faith in its pursuit of the accused and that no prima facie evidence had been presented. That being the case, it sent Bathala a show cause notice asking him to explain why he shouldn’t be required to pay compensation to those accused persons. But it should be held that the court thought it was unnecessary to pass any specific orders and dismissed the same.

ISSUES RAISED: 

The issues raised in this case were-

• If the petitioner has to pay damages to the accused persons?
• Should the accused persons be allowed to be a “Party” in the present revision?

CONTENTION OF PARTIES: 

Arguments of Petitioner- 

Shri Devadas was there to assist Mr. Bathla in this case. The office had objected, claiming that the revision was invalid since the accused individuals were not made party to it. At that time, Shri Devadas directed the ruling in the case of RASHEED MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER v. CROWN. In the aforementioned case, it was determined that the decision about whether or not compensation should be granted was one between the Court and the complainant, and as a result, the accused individuals were not required to be parties to the proceedings started under Section 250(1) of CrPC. Shri Devadas argued that the currently accused individuals do not need to be included in the amendment, citing the aforementioned instance as support. In attendance on behalf of the revision petitioner, Shri Devadas raised major objections to the aforementioned petitions and argued that the accused individuals lacked the legal capacity to be charged and take part in the current revision procedures. Shri Devadas, a knowledgeable attorney, argued that only the Special Judge could decide the case at hand. When the case was heard solely by a Magistrate, he claimed that Section 250 Cr.P.C. will apply. Cases that can only be tried by the Special Judge would not be covered by Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Arguments on behalf of Accused Persons- 

Shri N.K. Potdar, Shri S. Gopala Rao, Shri M.T. Nanaiah were the counsels on behalf of the accused persons. They sought permission to be included in the present case as parties. The knowledgeable Counsel Shri Potdar, Gopal Rao, and Nanaiah answered lengthy arguments. Because they would ultimately be entitled to compensation, the accused individuals had a right to express their interest and take part in the proceedings, according to the learned Counsel Shri Potdar. Shri Potdar then argued that if the complainant had the right to appeal the decision to issue a show cause notice, the accused would also be entitled to a hearing or a right of appeal if the notice were to be withdrawn. Additionally, he argued that the accused should be heard before the amount of compensation was decided, not just at the stage just after the show cause notice was issued. He asserted that if the accused individuals were not given the chance to participate in the procedures, the principles of natural justice would be broken, and all hearings would smell of injustice.

Arguments of the Counsel on Behalf of CBI- 

Additionally, the Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Shivappa argued that the C.B.I. cannot be forced to pay compensation under Section 250(1) Cr.P.C. because only the complainant could be prosecuted under that section. Shri Shivappa claimed that at this point, the accused had no right to take part in the current proceedings.

Judgment: 

The honourable Justice gave away his verdict and it is as follows-

He decided that the accused persons are not allowed to be accepted as participants in this case of compensation deciding case. Therefore, the issue of whether the accused has a right to appeal against any such order won’t come up until the compensation determination phase is complete. This Court has the authority to consider the current revision, which was brought by the revision petitioner in response to the decision issuing the show cause notice under Section 250(1) Cr.P.C., and it is unquestionably competent. Therefore, arguing that the accused people should be able to take part in the proceedings is pointless at this point. As a result, the applications that A-1 to A-10 submitted to present their case and/or request permission to participate in the proceedings were denied.

The present accused persons were discharged as per the section 258 of CrPC. In this case, the Special Judge has not even presented the charges to the accused and has not noted any supporting documentation. As a result, the Special Judge’s order would be covered by the clause “and in any other case, release the accused.” Release of the accused has a completely different meaning under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code than discharge, which typically occurs following the recording of the evidence in private cases. The phrase “and such release shall have the effect of discharge” was wisely used by the legislature. The legislature did not employ the phrase “release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge” if it had been intended that the accused should or could be discharged immediately. If no evidence is presented, the only relief to which the accused are entitled under Section 258 Cr.P.C. is release, which, in accordance with that section’s definition, has the same effect as discharge. According to Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused’s release has the same effect as a discharge. If such a release has the effect of a discharge, it simply means that the complainant may proceed with legal action with the court’s consent. The word “release” can only have that meaning when it refers to a release that has the impact of a discharge. Therefore, just because the word “discharge” appears in Section 258 Cr.P.C. does not signify that the accused persons have been released from custody in accordance with Section 250 Cr.P.C. or any other Criminal Procedure Code provisions.

The current case resulted from a charge sheet that the C.B.I. filed, to which the Special Judge had referred the complaint made by the revision petitioner in accordance with Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint loses all of its qualities as a private complaint and takes on the character of a challan by a police officer once it is forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to any police authority. It would be exceedingly inappropriate and improper to issue a notification under Section 250(1) Cr.P.C. after a charge sheet has been filed. If the show-cause notices envisioned by Section 250(1) of the Cr.P.C. I have not heard from the accused persons regarding the merits of the revision because their request to be impleaded and for permission to participate in the proceedings were denied. As a result, the judgement rendered by the Court below, which is contested in this revision, and which required the revision petitioner under Section 250(1) Cr.P.C. to show cause as to why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the accused persons, is quashed and set aside. The change is accepted. As they prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court, knowledgeable counsel for the accused side sought for an interim “stay” order, but their request was denied.

CONCLUSIONS: 

The case of Br Bathla v CBI has undoubtedly left a lasting impact on the legal landscape of India. The proceedings of this case have shed light on critical aspects related to the interpretation of the law, the scope of investigative powers, and the balance between personal rights and the pursuit of justice. As we conclude this analysis, it becomes evident that the Br Bathla v CBI case has provided valuable insights into the complexities and challenges faced by the Indian legal system. The case serves as a reminder that upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and transparency requires continuous scrutiny, evolution, and adherence to legal and ethical standards. It is our hope that Mr Bathla v CBI case will contribute to the ongoing discourse on strengthening the legal framework, ensuring accountability, and safeguarding the rights of all individuals within the Indian society.

This Case Analysis has been done by Dibyojit Mukherjee a student of DSNLU’28