Karnataka High Court
P.R. Venugopal vs G.P. Rajashekar And Ors. on 30 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(4)KARLJ280
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao
ORDER
1. All these three revisions are considered together for passing common order since they involve similar question of law and fact. The petitioner in Cri. R.P. Nos. 822 and 820 of 1999 is common. Respondents 1 to 3 in Cri. R.P. Nos. 822 and 820 of 1999 are also common. In Cri. R.P. No. 821 of 1999 the petitioner and two respondents are different. The Inspector General of Lokayukta is one of the respondent common in all the petitions. The petitioners filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. before the Special Judge-cum-Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur, under the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting the respondents 1 to 3 in Cri. R.P. Nos. 820 and 822 of 1999 and respondents 1 and 2 in Cri. R.P. No. 821 of 1999. The Special Judge referred the complaint for investigation to the Inspector of Lokayukta, Raichur under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. The Inspector, Lokayukta in turn entertaining doubt referred the matter to Inspector General of Police, Lokayukta who on the basis of the opinion of the Registrar of Lokayukta directs return of the complaint to the Court. In the opinion given by the Registrar of Lokayukta it is said that power of directing investigation by the police is vested only in the Magistrate and not in the Sessions Judge. To come to the said view, the provisions of Sections 156(3), 190 and 191 of the Cr. P.C. have been referred to. The Sessions Judge's order of reference of the complaint for investigation was held to be bad. Accordingly, it is directed the complaints to be returned to the Court.
2. Pursuant to the said orders of the Inspector General of Police of Lokayukta, the Sessions Judge recalls the order of the reference made to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. and directs the complainant to proceed with the private complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present revisions are filed.
3. It is unfortunate that the elementary principles of law are taken amiss by the responsible authorities functioning under the Lokayukta Act. The designated Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is the Special Judge. The Sessions Judges are designated as Special Judges under the Act and while functioning as a Special Judge, he is vested with all the original powers of Magistracy and deemed to be a Magistrate for the purpose of trial. This proposition of law is reiterated by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Anr.,
4. This Court in Basappa Gadigeppa Patted and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2002 Kar. 830 has dealt in detail the status, powers and scope of the Lokayukta Police, vis-a-vis the provisions of Cr. P.C., the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Lokayukta Act, the officers of the rank of Inspector of Police have been designated as Investigating Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act under the notifications issued under Section 2 of the Cr. P.C. the office of Inspector, Lokayukta is declared as Police Station for each area and division in the State. The Lokayukta Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act independently function as Investigating Officer and their subordination to Lokayukta under the Lokayukta Act has nothing to do with their functions as Investigating Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, whenever a complaint is referred for investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Inspectors of Lokayukta Police arc duty-bound to register and investigate complaints. It is highly objectionable and improper for the Inspector of Lokayukta to refer the matter to the inspector General of Lokayukta for opinion for conducting investigation in disobedience to the directions of the Court. The concerned judicial authorities working under Lokayukta have also failed to understand the legal effect and implications of the provisions and powers of the Lokayukta Police, while functioning under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the direction issued by the Inspector General, Lokayukta to return the complaint to Court is illegal and impermissible in law. The Sessions Judge without properly considering the legal powers and position of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act has hastily passed the impugned order recalling the reference and directing the complaint to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C.
5. The order made for investigation under Section 156(3) is the judicial order. The subordinate Courts under Cr, P.C. have no inherent powers and no power of review to recall the order made. The Special Judge had no jurisdiction to recall this order.
6. In a case of private complaint the right to choose the procedure under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. exclusively vests with the complainant. It is only at the insistence of the complainant the Court can permit the complainant to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. otherwise. It is always in the discretion of the Magistrate/Special Judge to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. or to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. by taking cognizance. In the instant case, the Special Judge has already exercised the discretion by reference of the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, he could not have recalled the order. In view of the legal propositions discussed above, I find that the order of the Special Judge in recalling the impugned order is bad in law.
7. Counsels for the respondents submitted that the order is only interlocutory order and not revisable. This Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional deficiency, the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. are wide when glaring illegality is noticed, the Court cannot blind its eye on the technical considerations.
8. Accordingly, I find no merit in the objection of the Counsels for the respondents. Accordingly, the revisions are allowed. The impugned orders of the Special Judge is set aside. It is directed that the complaint referred for investigation under Section 156(3) should be sent again to the Inspector of Lokayukta, Raichur, he should register the cases and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.