Delhi High Court upholds quashing of CBI notice to ex-HC Justice IM Quddusi in corruption case

The Delhi High Court recently allowed quashing of a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to retired Chhattisgarh High Court Justice IM Quddusi in connection with a corruption case [CBI v IM Quddusi]. .The CBI notice sought details about Quddusi's mobile numbers, bank accounts and domestic staff.In an order passed on January 12, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the CBI notice was issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a provision meant for the production of specific, pre-existing documents or objects, not for compelling an accused to create information based on personal knowledge.“By issuing a Notice under Section 91 for what is essentially a questionnaire, the Petitioner is attempting to bypass the interrogation process. This is an attempt to convert an oral examination, subject to the accused‟s volition and rights, into a mandatory order for production. To treat a demand for details as a demand for a document, would be to stretch the statutory language of Section 91 beyond its permissible limits,” the Court ruled. .Justice Quddusi was booked by the CBI in a 2019 FIR alleging a conspiracy to secure a favourable judicial order for Prasad Education Trust, whose medical college had been debarred by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The FIR named Justice Quddusi, former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Narayan Shukla and others under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.During the investigation, the CBI issued a notice under Section 91 CrPC asking Quddusi to provide details of phone numbers used, bank accounts held and drivers or servants employed during the relevant period in 2017.Justice Quddusi challenged the notice, arguing that Section 91 cannot be invoked against an accused and that compelling him to supply such information violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).The trial court ruled in the ex-judge’s favour, prompting the CBI to challenge the order before the High Court. The High Court agreed with the trial court’s findings. It held that the CBI’s notice effectively amounted to a questionnaire requiring the accused to “apply his mind, search his memory and compile information,” thereby amounting to testimonial compulsion..Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Guleria with advocates Aryan Rakesh and Prashant Upadhyay appeared for the CBI. IM Quddusi was represented through advocates Prashant Chari and Ayush Jindal. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.