Further, the CBI has submitted that the power to issue LOCs stems from Chapter 11 of the CBI Manual. In this context, the plea stated,
“The special judge has only referred to this provision and has returned a finding that even the Manual permits the CBI only to take recourse to provisions of LOC once an accused has absconded. The petitioner submits that this view is plainly perverse as contrary to plain reading to other provisions of CBI Manual.”
The plea also paragraph 29 of the order to the extent that it holds that Section 170 (cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would be applicable in a case covered by FCRA or any other law which requires prior prosecution sanction.
Paragraph 37 which approved the finding of the ACMM that statutory powers are to be exercised under a threat of being sued for damages, even if such powers are exercised bonafide, was also challenged.
On the grant of monetary compensation to Patel as ordered by the Special Court, the plea said,
“…the trial court has opened up the investigating agency to face litigations for a bonafide official act. The special judge despite finding the act to be bonafide has still permitted such an action to continue. It is submitted that this approach is plainly erroneous and would put a sword over officers who are to act within the four corner of the power to investigate.”
Source: Barandbench
