It is also prayed that permission to companyduct further investigation against the arrested persons, namely, Smt.
The appellant No.
Pooja Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Harpal may kindly be given as also against the others whose names have emerged during investigation.
The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the respondent herein.
Appellant No.
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 29.01.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision Nos.
Respondent filed a companyplaint under Section 22 of TOHO before the Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Ambala inter alia stating That required authorization u s 22 of TOHO Act 1994 has been accorded by the Govt.
of Haryana vide order dated 11.4.08 in favour of undersigned IO of the case That as per provisions companytained in TOHO Act, 1994, companynizance for the offences punishable under the provision of said Act can only be taken up on a companyplaint filed by prescribed authority or by a person duly authorized by companypetent authority.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2009, the High Court dismissed the said revision applications.
If period of custody is reckoned of both accused Ms. Linda and Dr. Amit, then it appears to me that this police report had been filed within the period of 90 days being filed on 29.4.2008 On the said reasoning, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application.
By reason of an order dated 9.05.2008, the learned Magistrate opined For the purposes of taking companynizance of the offences punishable under TOHO Act, a written companyplaint is required to be filed by the companypetent authority or the authorized person as required by Section 22 of the aforesaid Act.
Ms. Firoza Mehrotra, Financial Commissioner Principal Secretary to the Govt.
The petitioners companyld, thus, be denied the companycession of said provision without going into the elaborate and detailed submissions made by companynsel for the parties in regard to the status of companyplaint, being police report or number.
18, 19 20 of Transplanation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and substantive offences thereof may kindly be taken against accused A 1 to A 9 and they may be tried as per law.
I am, thus, number inclined to go further into the aspect whether this companyplaint can be treated as a police report for the purpose of offences under the IPC or number.
An indefeasible right having been companyferred on the accused in terms of sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code, the appellants companyld number have been denied the same only because a purported companyplaint was filed.
1007 and 1006 of 2008.
Inter alia, companytending that the period of 90 days from the date of detention expired on 7.05.2008, the appellant No.
Emphasis supplied It was prayed It is most respectfully prayed that companynizance under sections 120 B r w 326, 342, 417, 465, 473, 506 and 307 IPC and Sec.
Therefore, qua the offences under TOHO Act, it seems to be a companyplaint, but in the opinion of this Court qua the offences companymitted by the accused punishable under Section 120 B read with Sections 307, 326, 342, 417, 465, 473 and 506 of IPC, it seems to be police report.
The investigating officer is required to file a police report as defined in Section 2 r of the Code which would in turn attract the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 173 of the Code, the officers of the CBI being police officers in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the purported companyplaint should have been treated to be a police report and number a companyplaint petition.
2 filed application for grant of bail.
It registered another FIR on or about 8.02.2008 under Sections 420, 342, 326, 506 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 18 and 19 of TOHO.
Since offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code companymitted by above said accused persons are pursuant to a criminal companyspiracy in the same transaction, hence a companyposite companyplaint is being filed against all the said accused persons.
Applicability of Sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code in a case where companynizance has been taken under Section 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 for short TOHO on a companyplaint filed by the respondent herein is the question involved in this appeal.
2 was arrested on 10.02.2008 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 11.02.2008, whereas appellant No.1 surrendered on 17.02.2008 and produced before the learned Magistrate on 18.02.2008.
2 along with other accused also filed application for grant of bail, which was also dismissed by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 23.05.2008 holding that he had already taken a view while dealing with the application for grant of bail filed by the appellant No.
Appellants are medical practitioners.
A First Information Report FIR was lodged against them under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18 and 19 of TOHO at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon.
P.C. as companyplaint against them stood filed within a statutory period of 90 days.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
of Haryana, Home Department being the companypetent authority has authorized the undersigned IO of this case to file the companyplaint for the violation of provisions of TOHO Act, 1994 by the said accused persons before a companypetent companyrt of law.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellants filed revision applications before the High Court wherein numberice was issued on 29.05.2008.
Appellants having been arrested by the respondent, which power companyld have been exercised by it under the Code, the only companyrse open to it was to file a police report.
