"This Court cannot subscribe to this view, because, the law does not sanction such an inference. All policemen have to be trusted and it does not lie in the mouth of one to say that the CBI has special horns, whereas, the local police have only a tail...It may be an Agni Pariksha for the CBI, but, that cannot be helped. If their hands are clean, like Sita, they may come out brighter, if not they would have to face the music.”; the Madras High Court said while hearing the high-profile case of approx. 103 Kg gold missing from CBI custody.

The Court directed the Crime Branch to probe about the huge amount of gold missing from CBI custody. Madras HC Justice P N Prakash straight away rejected the CBI's request to direct the CBI of the neighboring State or the NIA (National Investigating Agency) to conduct the investigation.

According to the liquidator for Surana Corporation Limited, CBI had seized 400.47 kgs. of gold in connection with the investigation against the officials of Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India and Surana Corporation Limited on the allegation that MMTC had shown undue favor to Surana, who were importing gold and silver.

Pursuant to NCLT's direction to return the Gold to the liquidator (as criminal cases were withdrawn), the CBI, along with the representatives of all the banks and Surana, inventories the gold that was kept in the vaults of Surana. It was found that there was a shortage of 103.864 kgs. of gold. In these circumstances, the liquidator approached the High Court seeking a direction to CBI to return 103.864 Kgs of gold.

While considering this petition, the court asked the CBI why no FIR was registered for theft in this regard. The CBI's Special Public Prosecutor submitted that an internal inquiry is being conducted by the CBI and that under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the CBI does not have the authority to register a theft case, which falls within the domain of the local police.

He requested the Court to give a direction to the CBI to register an FIR for theft and conduct an investigation since the prestige of the CBI would come down, if the investigation is done by the local police. Justice PN Prakash observed: 

The court observed that the averments with regard to weight in a 'panchanama' cannot be taken lightly, especially in a case of this nature when the difference is not a few grams, but, a whopping one lakh grams. The Court, therefore, directed CB-CID of State to conduct an investigation in this regard. The bench said:

First, the alleged shortfall of 103.97 kgs. of gold could be a genuine mistake as contended by the CBI, or Secondly, the CBI officials, in collusion, with Surana and others, may have permitted Surana to deal with 100 and odd kgs. of gold after effecting the seizure of 400 kgs. This Court is not expressing any opinion on these possibilities. Suffice it to say that a free and fair investigation is, therefore, imperative to unearth the truth in this case."

(Courtesy LIVE Law)