The Supreme Court has issued a notice regarding the authority of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to file a chargesheet under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case in question revolves around whether an SIT can be considered equivalent to a police station with the power to initiate legal proceedings. This inquiry arises from an SIT formed by the State of Karnataka in 2015 to investigate allegations of corruption against Lokayukta officials.

A Special Leave Petition was filed against a Karnataka High Court judgment from May 26, 2023, which had invalidated the cognizance of offenses taken by the trial court and the filing of chargesheets by the SIT on the grounds that the SIT is not a police station.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat and AOR V.N. Raghupathy, emphasized that the High Court should have recognized the Investigating Officer's authority and the legality of the submitted chargesheet. They pointed to government orders and legal provisions that empowered certain police officers in the SIT to act as in-charge police officers.

The petition also referred to Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the submission of chargesheets, and argued that the definition of the Officer in charge of a police station under Section 2(o) of the CrPC includes any police officer directed by the government to perform as an in-charge police officer.

Moreover, the petition highlighted previous cases where the Supreme Court had granted stays against orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka regarding the competency of police officers in similar situations.

The background of the case dates back to 2015 when the Karnataka state government constituted an SIT to investigate corruption allegations against Lokayukta officials. The SIT, led by Mr. Kamal Pant (IPS), was granted the necessary powers to conduct investigations and submit reports to the court. Subsequently, the SIT filed a chargesheet against the respondent under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court acknowledged the case and rejected an application for discharge. However, the respondent challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the SIT did not qualify as a police station under the CrPC.

The High Court, in its ruling, referred to legal provisions and held that the power to file a police report cannot be delegated, and only a superior officer of a police station can exercise this power. It also ruled that the SIT was not declared a police station by the state government, setting aside the trial court's cognizance of the offense.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice in this case signals its intent to address the crucial question of whether an SIT can act as a police station for the purposes of initiating legal proceedings, and its verdict could have far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future.

Case title: State of Karnataka vs. N. Narasimha Murthy Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 011090 - 011091 / 2023