Section 212(3) of 2013 Act by itself does not lay down any fixed period within which the investigation report by SFIO has to be submitted. There is no stipulation of any fixed period for completion of investigation which is consistent with normal principles under the general law.
Section 212(3) of 2013 Act by itself does not lay down any fixed period within which the report has to be submitted. Even under sub-Section (12) which is regarding “investigation report”, again there is no stipulation of any period. In fact such a report under sub-Section (12) is to be submitted “on completion of the investigation”. There is no stipulation of any fixed period for completion of investigation which is consistent with normal principles under the general law. For instance, there is no fixed period within which the investigation under Criminal Procedure Code must be completed. If the investigation proceeds for a longer period, under Section 167 of the Code certain rights may flow in favour of the Accused. But it is certainly not the idea that in case the investigation is not over within any fixed period, the authority to investigate would come to an end.
Again, sub-Section (2) of Section 213 of 2013 Act does not speak of any period for which the other Investigating Agencies are to hold their hands, nor does the provision speak of any re-transfer of the relevant documents and records from SFIO back to said Investigating Agencies after any period or occurring of an event. For example, under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act” for short) the Agency (NIA) can be directed by the Central Government to investigate the Scheduled Offence under the NIA Act and where such direction is given, the State Government is not to proceed with any pending investigation and must forthwith transmit the relevant documents and records to the Agency (NIA). But under Section 7 of NIA Act, the Agency may, with previous approval, transfer the case to the State Government for investigation and trial of the offence.
The very expression “assign” in Section 212(3) of 2013 Act contemplates transfer of investigation for all purposes whereafter the original Investigating Agencies of the Central Government or any State Government are completely denuded of any power to conduct and complete the investigation in respect of the offences contemplated therein. The idea under sub-Section (2) is complete transfer of investigation. The transfer under sub-Section (2) of Section 213 would not stand revoked or recalled in any contingency. If a time limit is construed and contemplated within which the investigation must be completed then logically, the provisions would have dealt with as to what must happen if the time limit is not adhered to. The Statute must also have contemplated a situation that a valid investigation undertaken by any Investigating Agency of Central Government or State Government which was transferred to SFIO, must then be re-transferred to said Investigating Agencies. But the Statute does not contemplate that. The transfer is irrevocable and cannot be recalled in any manner. Once assigned, SFIO continues to have the power to conduct and complete investigation. If that be so, can such power stand curtailed or diminished if the investigation is not completed within a particular period. The Statute has not prescribed any period for completion of investigation. The prescription in the instant case came in the order of 20.06.2018. Whether such prescription in the Order could be taken as curtailing the powers of SFIO is the issue.
It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-adherence to such procedure, the relevant provision is normally not taken to be mandatory and is considered to be purely directory. Furthermore, the provision has to be seen in the context in which it occurs in the Statute. There are three basic features which are present in this matter:-
1. Absolute transfer of investigation in terms of Section 212(2) of 2013 Act in favour of SFIO and upon such transfer all documents and records are required to be transferred to SFIO by every other Investigating Agency.
2. For completion of investigation, sub-Section (12) of Section 212 does not contemplate any period.
3. Under sub-Section (11) of Section 212 there could be interim reports as and when directed.
In the face of these three salient features it cannot be said that the prescription of period within which a report is to be submitted by SFIO under sub-Section (3) of Section 212 is for completion of period of investigation and on the expiry of that period the mandate in favour of SFIO must come to an end. If it was to come to an end, the legislation would have contemplated certain results including re-transfer of investigation back to the original Investigating Agencies which were directed to transfer the entire record under sub-Section (2) of Section 212. In the absence of any clear stipulation, in our view, an interpretation that with the expiry of the period, the mandate in favour of SFIO must come to an end, will cause great violence to the scheme of legislation. If such interpretation is accepted, with the transfer of investigation in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 212 the original Investigating Agencies would be denuded of power to investigate and with the expiry of mandate SFIO would also be powerless which would lead to an incongruous situation that serious frauds would remain beyond investigation. That could never have been the idea. The only construction which is, possible therefore, is that the prescription of period within which a report has to be submitted to the Central Government under sub-Section (3) of Section 212 is purely directory. Even after the expiry of such stipulated period, the mandate in favour of the SFIO and the assignment of investigation under sub-Section (1) would not come to an end. The only logical end as contemplated is after completion of investigation when a final report or “investigation report” is submitted in terms of sub-Section (12) of Section 212. It cannot therefore be said that in the instant case the mandate came to an end on 19.09.2018 and the arrest effected on 10.12.2018 under the orders passed by Director, SFIO was in any way illegal or unauthorised by law. In any case, extension was granted in the present case by the Central Government on 14.12.2018. But that is completely besides the point since the original arrest itself was not in any way illegal. In our considered view, the High Court completely erred in proceeding on that premise and in passing the order under appeal.