HC reprimands three Haryana ACB officers
The order was passed during the hearing of a bail petition filed by one Ashok Kumar, who was booked in an FIR in December 2024 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other provisions, at ACB, Karnal.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has come down heavily on three officers of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Haryana-- an additional director-general of police (ADGP), a superintendent of police (SP) and an investigating officer for assuming the “role of a court of law” while investigating a corruption case.
“...it is apparent that the aforesaid three officials have not only mischievously misconstrued the mandatory statutory provisions, but also interfered with the process of law,” the bench of justice NS Shekhawat said, while summoning them and seeking an explanation before proceeding against them by April 28. The court also directed home secretary, Haryana observing that it expects that the officials having basic knowledge of law are attached with ACB at all levels. An affidavit from the home secretary in this regard has been sought by the next date of hearing.
The order was passed during the hearing of a bail petition filed by one Ashok Kumar, who was booked in an FIR in December 2024 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other provisions, at ACB, Karnal. The complaint was that some government officials had demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 for preparing parole release orders.
During the court proceedings it had come to light that the original phone containing the recording of the bribe demand was returned to the complainant, despite the recording forming the very basis of the allegations. The court, over three hearings since March 25, had drawn the attention of the officials to the legal requirement of collecting and presenting the best possible evidence before the court, the officers “did not agree”. They attempted to justify their action by submitting that the same procedure was routinely followed in all ACB cases across Haryana, as per proceedings of the court.
“This conduct may not only lead to acquittal of the accused in several cases under the PC Act but may also cause serious prejudice to the rights of aggrieved/victims of crime of financial fraud/corruption,” the bench observed adding that such investigative practices are being used by the officials to “check the admissibility” of primary and secondary evidence — a function reserved for the judiciary.
Now the court has also directed the home secretary to file an affidavit detailing all corruption cases registered by the ACB in the last two years where electronic or documentary evidence was returned by the investigating officer or Station House Officer on their own.
“It is strange to note that the police officials are apparently acting like a court of law—releasing case property on superdari and deciding the admissibility of evidence,” the bench remarked while holding that conduct of the officials not only bordered on contempt but also “constituted a criminal offence”.
“This court is of the prima facie opinion that the three officials are liable to be prosecuted under the various provisions of the BNS,” the court said adding that the officers entrusted with the task of probing corruption cases fairly and impartially were deviating from the established legal procedure and “projecting their own interpretation of the law”.
It also said that despite being repeatedly advised to adhere to statutory procedures, the officers disregarded court orders. “Once a case property is taken into possession by the police, the same can never be returned by the police on its own,” the court asserted.
