Vigilance Manual Not Statute, Mere Non-Compliance With Directions For Investigators Doesn't Vitiate Probe: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Vigilance Manual is not a statute and was not enacted by the legislature. Thus, it held that mere non-compliance with the Vigilance Manual's directions for investigating officers would not vitiate an investigation.The petitioner was an Assistant Surgeon at Kerala Health Services and was alleged to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct by...
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Vigilance Manual is not a statute and was not enacted by the legislature. Thus, it held that mere non-compliance with the Vigilance Manual's directions for investigating officers would not vitiate an investigation.
The petitioner was an Assistant Surgeon at Kerala Health Services and was alleged to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He alleged that the investigation was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) without complying with the directions of the Vigilance Manual.
Justice K Babu stated that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner due to non-compliance with Vigilance Manual directions.
“The Vigilance Manual is not a statute and has not been enacted by the Legislature. It is a set of administrative orders issued for internal guidelines of the Police officials concerned. The instructions in the Manual are only directory. Mere non-compliance with the instructions in the Manual, which are issued only for the guidance of the Detecting or Investigating Officers, would not vitiate the investigation. There may be some cases where non- compliance with the guidelines, which work as safeguards to avoid false implication, causes prejudice to the accused” , stated the Court.
The specific allegation was that while the petitioner was working as a medical consultant in January 2017, he demanded a bribe for doing a laparoscopic surgery. The petitioner was arrested by the VACB for allegedly receiving a bribe of two thousand rupees.
The VACB initially registered Crime No. 1/2017 for the check-in period from 2011 to 2017 and investigated the allegation of demanding a bribe. During the investigation, the check-in period was revised from 2011 to 2021 and Crime No. 1/2021 was registered for checking the sources of petitioner's wealth.
The Counsel for the petitioner alleged that two separate crimes cannot be registered against the petitioner and claimed for joinder of charges under Section 220 CrPC. It was also alleged that the investigation was conducted after an inordinate delay and FIR was registered with conducting preliminary investigation etc.
On the contention of joinder of charges for crimes committed by the same person, the Court stated that such offences or acts should form part of the same transaction to be tried together. It stated that the accused have no vested right to claim joinder of charges and the Court may or may not try all the offences together in one trial.
It said that the term 'same transaction' holds importance and stated that there was no universal formula for the determination of the same transaction. It added, “The commonality of purpose or design and continuity of action manifest that the same or different offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. The proximity of time, unity of place, unity or community of purpose or design and continuity of action make the series of acts alleged against the person constitute the same transaction.”
In the facts of the case, the Court stated the joinder of charges under Section 220 CrPC would not apply because both the alleged transactions were separate and not continuing acts forming part of the same transaction.
Regarding the contention that an FIR was registered without preliminary enquiry, the Court stated that an FIR could be registered without preliminary enquiry when allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence.
Regarding the revision of the check-in period from 2011 to 2017 to 2011 to 2021 during investigation, the Court stated that there was no general rule or criteria for fixing the check in period. It said that the choice of the period would depend upon the nature of the allegations and was left to the prerogative of the investigating agency.
“However, the period must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate. In the present case, the Investigating agency has taken ten years as the check period. A ten-year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding a true and comprehensive picture”, stated the Court. It said that the period selected shall be a reasonable period and not arbitrarily chosen by the investigating officers.
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition and stated that the petitioner failed to convince the Court that allegations do not disclose the commission of an offence.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates V.T.Raghunath, Manju Rajan
Counsel for Respondents: Special Government Pleader Rajesh A, Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
Case title: Dr Abdul Rasheed V State of Kerala
Case number: CRL.MC NO. 148 OF 2022