Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: October 13, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Ajay Rameshwar Agrawal; Respondents – The Superintendent of Police CBI & Others.
  • FIR Details: FIR‑RC:8/E/2002/CBI/EOW/Mumbai registered on 29‑Oct‑2002 by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the CBI against officials of IDBI Bank (public servants) and three private individuals. Charges were under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), alleging criminal conspiracy, procurement of loans on the basis of fake invoices and delivery challans, and diversion of loan amounts.
  • Investigative Outcome: CBI dropped charges against the IDBI officials and filed a chargesheet before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai (C.C. No.735/PW/2009).
  • Procedural History: The appellant filed a discharge application under Section 239 CrPC, which was rejected. A revision before the Sessions Court, Bombay was also dismissed. The matter proceeded to the Additional CJM, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, which framed charges, rejecting the appellant’s contention that the final report should have been placed before the Special Court. The High Court upheld this view.
  • Legal Contentions: The appellant argued that police can only submit a report and that cognizance is a judicial function, relying on Sampat Singh & Others v. State of Haryana & Others (1993) 1 SCC 561, where the Supreme Court held that a magistrate lacking jurisdiction must forward the matter to the Special Court.
  • Supreme Court Reasoning:
  • Section 157 CrPC mandates that an officer‑in‑charge send a report to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance.
  • In the present case, the FIR was forwarded to the Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai (see Annexure P1) along with copies to senior CBI officials.
  • The final report or the investigating agency’s opinion does not determine cognizance; the competent court decides that.
  • Since the offences under the PC Act require the Special Court, the chargesheet must be placed before the Special Judge, who will decide on cognizance. If the Special Judge exonerates the IDBI officials, the case may be remitted to a magistrate for IPC‑triable offences.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court directed the Additional CJM, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai to forward/transmit the chargesheet to the Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai.
  • No observations were made on the merits of the case; the issue of cognizance is left to the Special Judge.
  • The appeal is allowed; the cognizance taken by the Additional CJM is set aside on technical grounds.
  • Any pending applications, if any, are rejected.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Banking Fraud