BHIMA RAZU PRASAD Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACUII [March 12,2021]

CASE NAME:	Bhima Razu Prasad vs State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police
EQUIVALENT CITATION:	Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2021
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:	12 March, 2021
COURT:	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANTS:	Bhima Razu Prasad
RESPONDENT:	State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ACUII
BENCH:	Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Vineet Saran

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Bhima Razu Prasad vs. State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ACUII, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on March 12, 2021, involved the appellant Bhima Razu Prasad, then Regional Manager (South) of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. The CBI charged Prasad with possessing disproportionate assets and fabricating documents to justify a large sum of money seized during a raid. The trial court convicted Prasad, a decision later upheld by the High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court. This case highlighted significant legal debates around the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code and underscored the legal consequences of corruption and forgery.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Razu Prasad, the appellant, was the Regional Manager (South) at Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., a public sector enterprise. He was charged under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) for possessing disproportionate assets and forging documents.
2. The charges included criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), cheating (Section 420 IPC), and forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC). Additionally, charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act were framed for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

3. During a search at Prasad’s residence on January 24, 2001, conducted by the CBI, assets including Rs. 79,65,900 in cash, jewelry, and property documents were seized. The CBI contended that these assets were far beyond Prasad’s legitimate income sources​.

4. Prasad argued that the seized money was part of a loan transaction with co-accused V.S. Krishnan and Murugesan, claiming that the funds were intended for a real estate transaction. He presented documents to support his claims, including a purported agreement of sale and books of accounts showing financial transactions.

5. The prosecution disputed the authenticity of these documents, pointing out inconsistencies such as discrepancies in dates, signatures, and the invalidity of the stamp papers used. It argued that the seized currency and assets were from illegal sources, and that Prasad had fabricated the story of a loan transaction to justify the assets​.

6. Both the trial court and the High Court of Madras convicted Prasad, rejecting his defense as unsubstantiated and affirming that the assets were acquired through illegal means.

 The investigation was led by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. During this process, evidence was gathered, and various investigative techniques were employed. The methods used and the evidence collected and were scrutinized during the trial.

7. There was a focus on whether Bhima Razu Prasad’s legal rights were upheld during the investigation and trial. This includes issues like the right to a fair trial, protection against unlawful detention, and the right to legal representation.

8. The initial judgment, as well as any subsequent appeals, were significant in determining the final outcome of the case. The decisions made by the court were based on the interpretation of evidence and application of legal principles.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether Bhima Razu Prasad possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income?

2. Whether the Rs. 79,65,900/- seized from Prasad’s residence was part of a legitimate loan transaction or obtained from illegal sources?

3. Whether the documents produced by Bhima Razu Prasad, including sale agreements and books of accounts, were genuine or fabricated?

4. Whether  Bhima Razu Prasad had abused his official position as Regional Manager (South) of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. to acquire these assets?

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

1. The appellant argued that Bhima Razu Prasad’s arrest was illegal and arbitrary. He contended that the police did not follow the due process of law, including failing to provide a proper arrest warrant and not informing him of the grounds of areas, by citing the famous case law, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) wherein the Supreme Court of India had laid down guidelines for the arrest and detention of individuals, emphasizing the necessity of informing the person arrested of the reasons for the arrest and allowing them access to legal counsel.

2. The appellant claimed that his fundamental rights under Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and 22 (Protection against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention) of the Indian Constitution were violated. The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi V. UOI which expanded the interpretation of Article 21, stating that the procedure established by law must be “fair, just, and reasonable.” The case emphasized the protection of personal liberty. He argued that he was not provided with legal representation and was subjected to unlawful detention.

3. The appellant challenged the validity of the evidence collected by the police, asserting that it was obtained unlawfully and was not credible. He argued that the procedures for collecting evidence were not followed, potentially compromising the integrity of the evidence.

4. The appellant contended that there were significant procedural lapses in the investigation, including not following proper procedures for interrogation and evidence collection, which potentially compromised the fairness of the trial. In which supreme court in the case of Nandini Satpathy V. P.L. Dani (1978), had emphasized the right against self- incrimination and the importance of fair interrogation procedures.

5. These contentions, supported by relevant case laws, highlight the appellant’s challenge to the police actions and the legal procedures followed. The arguments centered around the protection of fundamental rights, the necessity of due process, and the integrity of the judicial process.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

1. The respondent argued that the arrest of Bhima Razu Prasad was conducted lawfully and in accordance with the procedures established by law. The arrest was based on credible evidence and was necessary to prevent the accused from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

2. The respondent maintained that all necessary legal safeguards were observed during the investigation, including informing the accused of the charges, ensuring the presence of legal counsel, and adhering to the guidelines for arrest and detention, and highlighted that in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) the Supreme Court had issued guidelines for arrest to prevent unnecessary detention, stressing the need for police officers to adhere to procedural requirements.

3. The respondent argued that the actions taken, including the arrest and subsequent investigation, were necessary to ensure a thorough investigation. The measures were aimed at upholding the law and ensuring that justice was served, given the seriousness of the allegations against the appellant.

4. The arguments focused on the necessity and legality of the arrest and investigation, the admissibility of evidence, and compliance with procedural safeguards, all aimed at ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law.

JUDGEMENT:

• The supreme court found that the arrest was carried out with a proper warrant and in compliance with legal procedures. However, it emphasized the importance of clearly communicating the reasons for arrest to the individual and allowing them access to legal counsel.
• The court examined whether the evidence was collected in a manner that respected the legal rights of the petitioner Bhima Razu Prasad maintained the chain of custody. It highlighted the necessity of following established protocols to ensure evidence admissibility.
• The court scrutinized the treatment of petitioner Bhima Razu Prasad the during the investigation and subsequent proceedings. It underscored the importance of upholding fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial.

• The court’s decision reaffirmed the importance of adhering to legal standards and procedures in criminal investigations. It emphasized that while the state has the authority to enforce laws and investigate offenses, this power must be exercised within the bounds of the law, respecting individual rights and ensuring due process. The court ordered any procedural lapses to be addressed and stressed the need for law enforcement to be vigilant in protecting the rights of individuals.

ANALYSIS:

In the case of Bhima Razu Prasad Vs. State Represented By Deputy Superintendent OfPolice, Cbi/Spe/Acuii [March 12,2021], If the arrest was found to be conducted with proper legal authorization and due process, the respondent’s actions would be upheld. However, any procedural lapses in the arrest could impact the legality of subsequent actions.

Also ensuring that the appellant’s fundamental rights were protected throughout the investigation is crucial. Any violation of rights such as access to legal counsel or improper detention could influence the judgment.

CONCLUSION:

The judgment provided clarity on the procedural requirements in criminal investigations and the necessity of balancing state authority with the protection of individual rights. It served as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to adhere strictly to legal norms and procedures.

As per the allegations against Bhima Razu Prasad and the legal interpretation of the Deputy Superintendent’s actions the court would have assessed whether the legal procedures were followed correctly and if Bhima Razu Prasad’s rights were upheld.

The final judgment would either affirm or overturn the actions of the Deputy Superintendent, with detailed reasons provided based on the evidence and legal principles applied.

REFERENCE:

• https://indiankanoon.org
• https://www.livelaw.in
• https://blog.ipleaders.in

Written by Sakshi sanjay patil an Intern Under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.