Organisational Structure of The Central Bureau of Investigation Essay Example

relating to inquiries and investigation of cases.

FOUNDER DIRECTOR

The founder director of the CBI was Shri D. P. Kohli who held office from 1st April, 1963 to 31st May, 1968. Before this, he was Inspector-General of Police of the Special Police Establishment from 1955 to 1963. Before that he held responsible positions in police in Madhya Bharat, Uttar Pradesh and Govt. of India. He was Police Chief in Madhya Bharat before joining the SPE. ShriKohli was awarded 'Padma Bhushan' in 1967 for his distinguished services. Shri Kohli was a visionary who saw in the Special Police Establishment the potential of growing into the national investigative agency.

He nurtured the organisation during his long stint as Inspector General and as Director and laid the solid foundation on which the organisation grew over the decades to become what it is today. While inaugurating the 4th Biennial Joint Conference of the CBI and State Anti-Corruption Officers, Shri Kohli told the delegates: "The public expects the highest standard from you both in efficiency and integrity. That faith has to be sustained. The motto of the CBI - Industry, Impartiality and Integrity: these must always guide your work. Loyalty to duty must come first, everywhere, at all times and in all circumstances.

The CBI is controlled by the Department of Personnel and Training in the

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension of the Union Government usually headed by a Union Minister who reports directly to the Prime Minister. While analogous in structure to the FBI, the CBI's powers and function are severely limited to specific crimes based on Acts (mainly the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946). The CBI is the official Interpol unit for India. The current director of CBI is Amar Pratap Singh. (See Annexure-A for list of Former Directors. )

EVOLUTION AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF C. B. I

In the early stages of the World War-II, the Government of India realised that the vast increase in expenditure for war efforts had provided opportunities to unscrupulous and anti-social persons, both official and non-official, for indulging in bribery and corruption. In order to tackle the problem, the Government set up Special Police Establishment (SPE) under a DIG in the then Department of War, through an executive order in 1941, with mandate to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in transactions with which the War and Supply Department was concerned.

At the end of 1942, the activities of the SPE were extended to include cases of corruption in Railways also, which was vitally concerned with the movement and supply of war materials. In 1943, an Ordinance was issued by the Government, constituting a Special Police Force vested with powers for investigation of certain offences committed by servants of Central Government. As a need for a Central Government Agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption was felt even after the end of the war, the Ordinance which lapsed on September 30, 1946, was replaced by Delhi Special Police Establishment Ordinance of 1946.

Subsequently,

the same year, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) was brought into existence. After promulgation of the Act, superintendence of SPE was transferred to The Home Department and its functions were enlarged to cover all departments of the Government of India. The jurisdiction of SPE was extended to all the Union Territories and the Act provided for its extension to the States with the consent of the State Government. The Headquarters of SPE was shifted to Delhi and the organisation was put under the charge ofDirector, Intelligence Bureau.

However, in 1948, a post of Inspector-General of Police, SPE was created and the organisation was placed under his charge. In 1953, an Enforcement Wing was added to the SPE to deal with offences under the Import and Export Control Act. With the passage of time, more and more cases under various laws other than Prevention of Corruption Act and violations of Import and Export Control Act also came to be entrusted to the SPE. In fact, by 1963, SPE was authorised to investigate offences under 91 different sections of Indian Penal Code and 16 other Central Acts, besides offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

A growing need was felt for a Central Police Agency at the disposal of the Central Government, which could investigate not only cases of bribery and corruption, but also violation of Central fiscal laws, major frauds relating to Government of India Departments, Public Joint Stock Companies, Passport frauds, crimes on the High Seas, crimes on the Airlines and serious crimes committed by organised gangs and professional criminals.

Over a period of time, some of the work originally allotted to the CBI

was transferred to other organisations. Part of the work relating to Crime Records and Statistics Division was transferred to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and that relating to Research Division was transferred to Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR). With the passage of time, requests were made by various quarters for CBI to take up investigation even in conventional crimes like assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, crimes committed by extremists, violation of Official Secrets Act, large scale Banks and Insurance Frauds, etc. nd others complicated cases like Bhagalpur Blinding, Bhopal Gas Tragedy, etc.

Since early 1980’s, Constitutional Courts also started referring cases to CBI for enquiry / investigation on the basis of petitions filed by the aggrieved in cases of murders, dowry deaths, rape, etc. In view of these developments, it was decided in 1987 to have two Investigation Divisions in CBI, namely, Anti-Corruption Division and Special Crimes Division, the latter dealing with cases of conventional crimes as well as economic offences.

Bank Frauds and Securities Cell was created in 1992 to investigate cases related to Bank Frauds & Securities Scams. Due to increased workload relating to Securities Scam cases and rise in economic offences with the liberalisation of Indian economy, a separate Economic Offences Wing was established in 1994. Accordingly, three Investigation Divisions were created in CBI:

• Anti-Corruption Division – To deal with cases of corruption and fraud committed by public servants of all Central Government Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and Central Financial Institutions.
• Economic Crimes Division – To deal with bank frauds, financial frauds, Import Export & Foreign Exchange Violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property and smuggling of other contraband items, etc.
• Special
  

Crimes Division – To deal with cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, sensational homicides, kidnapping for ransom and crimes committed by the mafia/ underworld.

As on date, CBI has the following Divisions:

1. Anti-Corruption Division.
2. Economic Offences Division.
3. Special Crimes Division.
4. Policy and International Police Co-operation Division.
5. Administration Division.
6. Directorate of Prosecution.
7. Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

JURISDICTION POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND LIABILITIES

The legal powers of investigation of CBI are derived from the DSPE Act 1946. This Act confers concurrent and coextensive powers, duties, privileges and liabilities on the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) with Police Officers of the Union Territories. The Central Government may extend to any area, besides Union Territories, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the CBI for investigation subject to the consent of the Government of the concerned State.

CBI may investigate:

• Cases which are essentially against Central Govt. mployees or concerning affairs of the Central Govt. and the employees of the Central Public Sector Undertakings and Public Sector Banks.
• Cases in which the financial interests of the Central Government are involved.
• Cases relating to the breaches of Central Laws with the enforcement of which the Government of India is mainly concerned.
• Big cases of fraud, cheating, embezzlement and the like relating to companies in which large funds are involved and similar other cases when committed by organised gangs or professional criminals having ramifications in several States.
• Cases having interstate and international ramifications and involving several official agencies where, from all angles, it is considered necessary that a single investigating agency should be incharge of the investigation.

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF CBI

The CBI is headed by a Director, an IPS Officer of the rank of

Director General of Police or Commissioner of Police (State). Director is selected based on the procedure laid down by CVC Act 2003 and has a tenure of 2 years.

The other important ranks in the CBI are Special Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, Senior Constable and Constable. (See annexure-B for the list of Senior Officers. ) According to annual reports Staff of CBI is usually divided between Ministerial staff, Ex-cadre posts which are usually of technical nature, Executive Staff and EDP Staff.

Hindi Bhasha staff belongs to the Department of official languages. Ministerial Staff includes LDC, UDC, and Crime Assistants etc. Executive Staff includes Constables, ASI, Sub-Inspectors, and Inspectors etc. EDP Staff includes Data Entry Operators, Data Processing Assistants, Assistant Programmers, Programmers and SSA.

SELECT CASES INVESTIGATED BY C. B. I SOME OF THE SELECT CASES INVESTIGATED BY C. B. I

Normally, cases assigned to the CBI are sensitive and of national importance. It is a usual practice for the respective state police departments, to initially register any case coming under its jurisdiction, and if necessary, through mediation by the central government, the cases may be transferred to the CBI. The CBI handles many high profile cases, and is never far from controversy. Bofors scandal In January 2006, it was found that CBI had quietly unfrozen bank accounts of Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, one of the prime accused in the Bofors scandal of 1986 which had tainted the Rajiv Gandhi government.

The Central Bureau of Investigation has been responsible for the inquiry into the

Bofors Case. Associates of the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi were linked to alleged pay-offs made in the mid-1980s by the Swedish arms form AB Bofors, with $40 million in kickbacks moved from Britain and Panama to secret Swiss banks. The $1,300 million arms purchase of 410 howitzer field guns involved in the sale were reported to be inferior to those offered by a French competitor. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which defreeze

Rs 21 crore stashed in a London bank in two accounts held by Bofors scam accused Ottavio Quattrocchi and his wife Maria in 2006, has facilitated his travel across the globe by asking Interpol to take him off the “wanted” list on 29 Apr 2009. Following a communication from the CBI, the Interpol has withdrawn the Red Corner Notice against the Italian. The development that comes barely three weeks before the end of the Manmohan Singh government’s tenure has brought back the issue of the Bofors scandal to the centre stage.

It is often suspected that ruling governments interfere with the work of the CBI, and nevertheless the handling of the bofors investigation by CBI under congress governments has created a new synonym for CBI. After letting of the bofors accused - Oppositions have never tired to call it as the Congress Bureau of Investigation. ISRO spy ring case In 1994 two scientists with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and two Indian businessmen were arrested for allegedly conspiring to sell space secrets to two Maldivian women, who were originally described by newspapers as agents of Pakistani intelligence, for money and sex.

The CBI investigation did not reveal the existence of a spy ring,

and by early 1995 it was clear that the case was more a product of inexperience and over exuberation on the part of the police and Intelligence Bureau. It was a well planned scheme to remove the then DGP Ramon S by concocted links to Maldivian lady. The scheme was plotted by some officers of Kerala police, the media and Muslim League as DGP was made of sterner stuff. Hawala Scandal In 1991 an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians.

The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest petition (see Vineet Narain), and yet the court cases of the Hawala scandal eventually all collapsed without convictions. The CBI's role was again criticised. In concluding the Vineet Narain case, the Supreme Court of India directed that the Central Vigilance Commission should be given a supervisory role over the CBI. Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case The CBI has been under a cloud owing to its handling of the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, in which the alleged murderer of a 22-year old law student was cquitted for what the case judge called "deliberate inaction" by the investigating team.

The accused was the son of a high ranking officer in the Indian Police Service, due to which the case had been shifted from the regular police force to the CBI. However, the 1999 judgment commented on how "the influence of the father of the accused has been there". Embarrassed by the judgment, the-then CBI Director, R K Raghavan, requested two Special Directors, P C Sharma and G H Achari, to study the judgment. Subsequently the

CBI appealed the verdict in Delhi High court in 2000, after which the High Court issued a bailable warrant against the accused.

The case again shot into limelight in 2006 after much media coverage and public bashing (this was mainly due to a similar acquittal in another high profile case though not handled by the CBI). The CBI filed an application for early hearing in July 2006. The High Court subsequently found Santosh Kumar Singh guilty of rape and murder and awarded death sentence for the same in October 2006. Nithari Killings The CBI was given the responsibility of investigating the murders of dozens of children in the Nithari village near Noida, UP.

This was after the local police was found to be incompetent and lethargic in their investigations. The serial killings were in the Indian and international media for weeks since decomposing bodies were found outside the house of the accused Moninder Singh Pandher. Due to political influence he is a free man at present. Dawood Ibrahim case In August 2007, the CBI asked its Pakistani counterpart, the Federal Investigation Agency, for its comments on recent media reports about the detention of Dawood Ibrahim by authorities in Karachi.

Sister Abhaya murder case Sister Abhaya murder case concerns a nun, who was found dead in a water well in Saint Pius X convent hostel in Kottayam, Kerala on 27 March 1992. Altogether there were five CBI inquiries into the murder case so far without any tangible results. The powerful Catholic Lobby had exerted their undue influence to subdue the case as a Priest and a nun were involved. Abhaya had caught them in a compromising position. Malankara Varghese

murder case The Malankara Varghese murder case concerns the death of T. M.

Varghese also known as Malankara Varghese,a member of Malankara Orthodox Church's managing committee and a timber merchant in 5 December 2002. On 9 May 2010 charged Father Varghese Thekkekara,a priest and manager of the Angamali diocese in the rival Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (a part of the Syriac Orthodox Church) with conspiracy in the murder of Malankara Varghese and named him as the prime accused. Till date,the prime accused has not been arrested, CBI is highly being criticized for this by Kerala High Court and Media.

Bhopal gas tragedy The public perceived that CBI was very ineffective in trying the Bhopal gas tragedy case, the former CBI director has now confessed that he asked to remain soft on extraditing the Union Carbide CEO Warren Andreson, and dropped charges including culpable homicide against accused in this case, who received two year sentences. The events resulted in the deaths of more than 15000 people.

Give the agency enough assurance that it can function without fear and it need not be worried about the consequences of speaking the truth. Thursday's Supreme Court order asking the Central Bureau of Investigation to go ahead with the probe into the 2G scam and to extend it to finding out how the whole matter was handled as far back as in 2001 comes as no surprise. There are a few significant features, either explicit or implied, to the court's directive. First, the plea for forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to continue with the CBI-initiated investigation has been rejected.

This is most logical because of the enormity of the probe, which only an

organisation like the CBI can undertake. The second feature is the obvious acknowledgement of the highest court's faith in the much-maligned investigating agency. This should come as a shot in the arm for the CBI, which has a brand new Director with a Himalayan reputation for sobriety and honesty. If he cannot deliver the goods, no one can at this juncture. This is an extremely sensitive investigation in which several persons in high places have something or the other to tell the CBI, either on their own or in response to questions from the agency.

Papers available at the Prime Minister's Office may have to be made available to the investigating officer at some stage of the investigation. This is in the context of the allegation that the former Telecom Minister spurned the Prime Minister's wise counsel for fairness and caution in doling out licenses. This could involve senior officials in that office deposing to the chain of correspondence and the responses from the Telecom Ministry. All this will require deft handling, and any heavy-footed work will only invite criticism of an agency that has always been the whipping boy to many.

In passing its order, the Supreme Court did not mince words about how the CBI should be absolutely professional. “Don't be influenced by anybody,” is its clear warning to the agency. This is tantamount to a direction that the investigators will have to be wholly apolitical and objective, and should not be overawed by any personality, however high in the hierarchy. This is the acid test that the court has prescribed for the CBI. This is something similar to what Chief Justice J. S. Verma

told the CBI in the Hawala case in an almost intimidator tone.

The organisation rose to the occasion and came out with certain findings which resulted in some heads rolling. This is the crux of the matter. Give the CBI enough assurance that it can function without fear and it need not be worried about the consequences of speaking the truth. It is only in such an ambience that the CBI can get to the bottom of the scandal. It has a number of officers who have the right investigating skills and can ferret out facts much needed to bring the offenders to book. They require not only a free hand, but also protection. Or else, they will go only half way.

This brings me to the most vital point, namely, the autonomy of the CBI. What is the point in deriding it as a handmaiden of the ruling party, if you tie its destinies totally to the executive? We, no doubt, need an accountable CBI that will not deviate from the law of the land and will not commit any human rights violation in going about its chores. At the same time, it needs total autonomy from the caprice and malice of a politically-oriented executive. Vested interests want us to believe that autonomy and accountability cannot go together. This is obfuscation of the most condemnable variety.

The judiciary, despite all the setbacks it has suffered recently, is the best bet against a CBI that could act recklessly under political control. The commendable manner in which the Supreme Court has been guiding the spectrum scandal is proof enough that a judiciary-monitored CBI is the kind of mechanism that

a nation battered by a tsunami-like wave of corruption needs now. Those who have an entirely different agenda and pay lip service to democratic norms will view such an arrangement, where the CBI is answerable only to the courts, as a dilution of executive authority that the framers of our Constitution did not visualise.

A desperate situation like the one we are now facing demands desperate remedies. And one such remedy is a CBI that stands by itself and derives all its authority from a statute passed by Parliament. I know this is a pipe dream. All political parties across the spectrum (no pun intended) want a subservient investigating agency that would not dare to go against a ruling party functionary when the latter transgresses the law. The Hawala case brought in reform in the form of a fair and objective system of choosing the right candidate for the position of CBI Director and giving him a mandatory two-year term.

Let us hope that the spectrum investigation will, similarly, lead to a more far-reaching reform of giving statutory insularity to the CBI. This cannot happen unless there is the weight of media and public opinion backing the laudable move aimed at lending credibility to the highest investigating agency in the land. For an autonomous CBI (EDITORIAL, TNN Nov 4, 2004) It's shameful that the government has denied CBI permission to proceed against former petroleum minister and Congress leader Satish Sharma and others for their alleged role in a petrol pump scam.

This is reason enough for new legislative steps to make the CBI fully autonomous. Independence of the judiciary is insufficient to ensure justice, if prosecution of criminals

depends on arbitrary political choice. The way to shelter innocent functionaries from victimisation via false cases is to have an efficient system of investigation and prosecution, with penal disincentives for malafide allegations. The government should not have the power to decide whom to prosecute and whom to let go scot free. This malaise, however, is not a Congress monopoly.

Then home minister L K Advani, from the "party with a difference," was acquitted in September 2003 by a Rae Bareli-based special court, hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case, just because the CBI 'failed' to file a proper chargesheet. Such accurate failures, indeed, inspire awe, as do the 65-70% conviction rate it manages, probably by catching telephone linemen accused of accepting bribes. The CBI has, clearly been reduced to our average hinterland police thana where networks of patronage and political control override the national good and a fair quest for justice and truth.

What is even more alarming is that the Sharma sensation has occurred even though a 1997 Supreme Court verdict accorded a semblance of autonomy to the CBI by bringing it under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission. Evidently, this bit of judicial activism has not succeeded in making prosecution of crime independent of political meddling. We need to amend the Constitution so that the CBI doesn't need to seek the permission of the government of the day to prosecute ministerial crimes.

India needs a probe agency completely free of government control and thus politically unpliable. This institution can be made answerable to Parliament, to ensure democratic accountability and guard against abuse by those who man the agency. Is the CBI truly autonomous? (An article by

Paranjay Guha Thakurta on website: www. delhitalks. in) Is the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) truly autonomous? Very few believe that the country’s premier police investigative agency is free from political interference.

Yet, somewhat paradoxically, more people seem to have greater faith in the ability of the CBI (more than state government police agencies) to prosecute offenders, particularly influential politicians, if not, at least, unearth relevant facts relating to the commission of crimes, including acts of corruption. In the complex case relating to misallocation and undervaluation of secondgeneration telecommunications spectrum, the CBI has not just placed behind bars Andimuthu Raja, former Union minister for communications and information technology, Siddharth Behura, former secretary of the Department of Telecommunications, and R. K. Chandolia, an official who was close to Mr Raja, the agency has also taken into custody affluent builder Shahid Usman Balwa who controls Etisalat DB (formerly Swan Telecom).

And that’s not all. The CBI recently interrogated K. Kanimozhi, member of Parliament belonging to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and her step-mother Dayalu Ammal, second wife of DMK head Muthuvel Karunanidhi. They were reportedly questioned in connection with the investments made by one of Mr Balwa’s companies in Kalaignar TV which is owned by members of the family of the Tamil Nadu chief minister.

So, is the CBI truly independent to pursue any line of inquiry it wishes to in the 2G spectrum scam and is it genuinely not afraid to accuse any individual it holds responsible for the scandal, no matter how important she or he might be in the current ruling dispensation? ” If indeed the CBI today appears relatively autonomous in conducting its investigations – it

has to submit a chargesheet in the spectrum case against certain “unknown” persons that had been registered in October 2009 by the end of March – the people of this country have to be especially thankful to the Supreme Court of India.

After the public interest litigation in the 2G spectrum case (in which this columnist is one of the three petitioners) was dismissed by the Delhi high court, one could scarcely have imagined how proactively the Supreme Court would take the matter up and eventually monitor the CBI’s investigations. “Does the way in which the CBI has acted in investigating the spectrum scandal, under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court, suggest that the agency is basking in its newfound freedom? In other words, the CBI may not have displayed the kind of autonomy it has so far if the highest court of the country had not prodded it to act expeditiously and independently. Interestingly, the fact that the CBI was acting under the directions of the Supreme Court was used by a section of the Congress Party to its advantage while negotiating for seats with the DMK in the run-up to the Assembly elections that have been scheduled for April 13. The CBI is expected to submit a status report on the spectrum case to the Supreme Court today.

Recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had suggested that one of the most important reasons why the government took as long as it did before ensuring that Mr Raja put in his papers – and action was taken against his allegedly criminal acts in depriving the national exchequer of huge amounts of money by manipulating the allocation

of scarce and precious electro-magnetic spectrum to mobile telecommunications companies – was the “compulsions of coalition politics” Few were convinced by Dr Singh’s arguments because of the arithmetic involved.

The DMK (the second-largest constituent of the ruling United Progressive Alliance coalition) has 18 members in the current Lok Sabha, whereas 34 members of the legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu belonging to the Congress have been propped up Mr Karunanidhi’s government in Chennai. The obvious question that arises is whether the DMK needs the Congress more than the Congress needs the DMK. The DMK was initially adamant on not giving 63 seats to the Congress in the forthcoming Assembly elections. In fact, the DMK ministers in the Union government had threatened to resign over the seat-allocation dispute.

This is not the first time that Mr Karunanidhi has sought to virtually blackmail the government in New Delhi to abide by his wishes – he had earlier acted in a similar manner and successfully arm-twisted the Atal Behari Vajpayee government as well as the second UPA government. In fact, many argue that Mr Raja’s appointment as the telecom minister for a second term in May 2009 was largely a consequence of the “politics of blackmail” mastered by Mr Karunanidhi. The crucial difference on this occasion was that Mr Karunanidhi had to eat humble pie.

His pressure tactics did not work, not with Congress president Sonia Gandhi nor the Prime Minister. The Congress stuck to its guns and, for a change, the DMK had to backtrack. The Tamil Nadu chief minister’s emissaries were clearly told that the Union government would not be able to ensure that the CBI would not interrogate Ms

Kanimozhi and Ms Dayalu, something the DMK was clearly keen on avoiding before the elections. But that was not to be. The elderly head of the Tamil Nadu government and his party would be further embarrassed if names of members of the “first family” of the state find their way into the CBI’s chargesheet.

To return to the question that was raised earlier: One would like to believe this is true, but it may be a bit too early to rejoice. Why? Information obtained through an application using the Right to Information Act filed by a news magazine indicates that during 2008 and 2009, the CBI was denied sanction by the Central government to prosecute 23 senior government officers (most of them above the rank of joint secretary) against who charges of corruption had been investigated.

Apart from political cases, the rich people normally go scot-free for various reasons — like influencing the witnesses and better legal aid. As a result, the faith of people in the entire criminal justice system is getting eroded. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, people will lose faith in the system and take law in their own hands.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

C. B. I has emerged as a premier investigating agency over the years. Since it establishes in year 1963, it has been gaining strength. Its three dimensions namely Anti Corruption Division, Economic Offenses Division; Special Crime Division and newly added departments like: Investigation & Anti-Corruption Division (Delhi Special Police Establishment), Technical Division, Crime Records And Statistics Division, Research Division, Legal And General Division. , Administration Division has been handling many crucial cases and as

a result has been trusted by many. However, on account of its control by the government, it has lended itself in many controversies.

There have rising demand for its autonomy as some charges of political vendetta and biasness has been leveled against it. Further considering its better conviction rate (66. 2%in 2008 and 67. 9% in 2007), it is still considered as a very effective investigating agency.