The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed strong displeasure over the functioning of the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), stating that it was acting beyond its legal authority and behaving like a court of law in corruption cases.
"It is strange to note that the police officials are apparently acting like a court of law—releasing case property on superdari and deciding the admissibility of evidence," observed Justice N.S. Shekhawat.
The Court found that the ACB had wrongly applied the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) during the investigation stage, although it is strictly meant for judicial proceedings. The matter arose during a bail hearing in a corruption case, where the court observed irregularities in how electronic evidence—specifically, a mobile phone containing a recorded conversation—was handled.
The Court noted that the phone was not seized as case property and was returned to the complainant by the police, mimicking court-like procedures through superdari orders. This, the judge stated, was not legally permissible.
The State counsel, on instructions from the ADGP, ACB Haryana, and the Superintendent of Police, submitted that the phone was initially not considered case property and was thus returned. They claimed that since the evidence was recorded and transferred to a CD, the CD would serve as “primary evidence” under Section 57 of BSA.
However, the Court firmly rejected this argument:
“The provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 only apply to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court exclusively... it can never be expected that the provisions of BSA would be made applicable to the process of investigation.”
The judge further emphasized that the police had completely ignored Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates that once property is taken into possession, it must be presented before a criminal court, which alone can decide its custody during investigation or trial.
The Court warned that such premature return of key evidence could lead to acquittals in corruption cases and serious injustice to the victims.
“The conduct not only borders on contempt but may also constitute a criminal offence... prima facie, the officials are liable to be prosecuted under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,” the Court added.
The Court directed the Home Secretary, Haryana to submit an affidavit addressing several critical issues, including:
- A list of cases in the past two years where case property or evidence was returned by Investigating Officers themselves.
- Whether internal instructions allowed such returns in violation of Section 497 of BNSS.
- Copies of any rules that authorized police officers to judge evidence admissibility.
- Any legal basis permitting police to act like a court for issuing superdari orders.
Before initiating legal action against the concerned officials—the ADGP, SP (ACB) Karnal, and Investigating Officer—the Court has given them a chance to explain their actions. They are directed to appear in person on the next hearing.
The Court appointed Senior Advocate Viond Ghai and Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia as amicus curiae and scheduled the matter for hearing on April 28.
In conclusion, the Court sent a clear message to the Haryana Government, stressing that only officers with basic and sound legal knowledge should be posted in the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
"The information in this regard shall be shared with the Court on the next date of hearing," the order said.
Title: Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate (throughVC) for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana
