IN COUrse of such investigation, CBI apprehended Mohd. Salim Mira Moinuddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta, one of the absconders mentioned in the charge sheet on July 24, 1995. He made a confessional statement before Shri S.K.Saikia, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID, Ahmedabad, was recorded by him on August 18 and 19, 1995 under Section 15 of TADA. In that confession, he disclosed that the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein (hereinafter referred to as the “respondents”) had taken an active part in the criminal conspiracy which was the subject matter of B.B.C. No. 1 of 1993.
Thereafter on May 2, 1996, the CBI moved an application before the Designated Court (Misc. Application No. 201 of 1996) wherein it stated that following the disclosure of the involvement of the respondents in the offences in question, raids have been conducted at their known hideouts to arrest them but none could be apprehended in spite of best efforts as they were deliberately evading their arrest to escape the clutches of law and, accordingly, prayed for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against them to initiate further proceedings in the matter to apprehend them and/or to take further action to declare them as proclaimed offenders.
GROUND OF CBI
From the impugned order we find that before the Designated Court it was submitted on behalf of CBI that since it was making further investigation into the offences in respect of which charge-sheet has earlier been submitted and since the presence of the respondents, who were absconding, was absolutely necessary for ascertainment of their roles, if any, in the commission of the offences, it was felt necessary to file the applications. It was further submitted that only after warrants and/or proclamation as prayed for were issued, that it (CBI) would be able to take further coercive measures to compel them to appear before the Investigating Agency for the purpose of intended further investigation. According to CBI under Section 78 of the Code and Section (3) (a) of TADA, the Designated Court was fully empowered to issue warrants of arrest and proclamation.
GROUND OF REJECTION
In rejecting the above contention the Designated Court held that after cognizance was taken in respect of an offence process could be issued to the persons accused thereof only to compel them to face the trial but no such process could be issued by the Court in aid of investigation under Section 73 of the Code. According to the Designated Court, though under code further investigation was not barred there was no provision therein which entitled the Investigation Agency to seek for and obtain aid from the Court for the same.