Two CBI officers convicted for ‘mala fide’ raid on IRS officer in 26-year-old case

The court said the search and arrest proceedings carried out by the accused persons “were in sheer violation of the powers bestowed upon them by law”.

A Delhi court on Saturday convicted two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for forcing their way into the house of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer in Paschim Vihar and carrying out a “mala fide” search and arrest proceeding to settle professional differences, in an incident that took place around 26 years ago.

Delhi court convicts 2 CBI officers for ‘mala fide’ raid after 26 years (Representative image)

The judgment was passed by judicial magistrate first class Shashank Nandan Bhatt of Tis Hazari courts. The court convicted Ramneesh, currently serving as a joint director of the CBI, and VK Pandey, a CBI Inspector at the time of the incident, under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 448 (house trespass) and 427 (mischief).

While IPC sections 323 and 448 allow a punishment of imprisonmentfor a year each, the term is up to two years under IPC Section 427.

According to the complainant, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, on October 19, 2000, at 5.50am, the accused officers forcibly entered his house in Paschim Vihar after assaulting the gatekeeper. They then allegedly locked up the complainant’s family members in a room and forcibly dragged him outside the house to arrest him, the complaint alleged.

Aggarwal claimed that his legal rights were grossly violated at the time of the arrest and stated that he sustained an injury to his right forearm due to the assault.

He alleged that the action was carried out by the accused officers to settle scores with him due to a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order in his favour, which stayed his transfer and reviewed his suspension in connection with a disproportionate assets FIR being investigated by Ramneesh, one of the accused.

In a 45-page order, the court said the entire search and arrest proceedings carried out by the accused persons “were in sheer violation of the powers bestowed upon them by law” and with the sole objective of frustrating and nullifying the CAT order.

The order stated, “…the accused persons, in connivance with other officials of CBI, took a conscious decision to arrest the complainant in the wee hours, by exercising their powers in a malafide manner by breaking open the door of his house and by causing him injuries at the time of arrest”.

The court further held that the actions of the accused persons were “deliberate attempts” aimed at denying the complainant the fruits of the order passed by CAT and to keep the complainant embroiled in investigations which were being conducted by CBI, in which the complainant was eventually discharged.

The court rejected the defence of the accused persons, noting that their actions did not fall within the scope of “discharge of official duty” and thus, they could not be granted the benefit of protection under Section 197 of the CrPC read with Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.

Section 197 of the CrPC protects public servants from frivolous prosecution by requiring government sanction before a court can take cognisance of the offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty.

Regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant, the court said that it was of the opinion that he sustained the injury TO the right forearm because of being dragged and manhandled by the accused persons “and the accused persons have not been able to establish any justifiable grounds for inflicting the said injury on the body of the complainant”.

“The testimony of the complainant witnesses, the documents relied upon and the medical record of the complainant, cogently establish the case of the complainant as per the prescribed yardstick of beyond reasonable doubt,” the order noted.