Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Verma vs State Of M.P. on 11 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)MPHT385
ORDER S.S. Saraf, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent.
2. The petitioner was working as S.D.O. in Tandula Water Resources Sub-Division No. 2, Balod, District Durg. A complaint was filed before the respondent that the petitioner possesses assets beyond the known sources of his income. Consequently, the raids were conducted and a case for offence under Section 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') has been registered against him. The petitioner filed several representations before the concerned authorities explaining his sources of income. Ultimately, he filed the present petition invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings initiated against him.
3. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides prayed that the matter be heard and disposed of on the point of tenability as the Investigating Officer had no authority to investigate into the allegations allegedly made against the petitioner.
4. The contention of Shri Rajendra Singh, learned senior Advocate, is that Shri Victor Tirki, one of the three Investigating Officers was not legally authorised by the Superintendent of Police to investigate the offence and therefore the investigation conducted by Shri Victor Tirki is illegal and the proceedings deserve to be quashed. On the contrary, Shri G.S. Ahaluwalia, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent urged that the order authorising Shri Victor Tirki to investigate the allegations against the petitioner is proper and legal.
5. The provisions regarding the investigation into the allegation for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act are enumerated in Section 17 of the Act. The Section 17 of the Act is reproduced for the better understanding of the arguments extended by both the parties.
"17. Persons authorised to investigate.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,--
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan area of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Dy. Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank;
shall investigate any offence punishable under order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefore, without a warrant :
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefore, without a warrant :
Provided further that an offence referred to in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police."
6. From the perusal of the above provisions of Section 17 of the Act, it is apparently clear that no police officer below the rank of Dy, Superintendent of Police or a police officer of an equivalent rank in the present case shall investigate an offence punishable under the Act without prior order of the Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be. It is also provided in the first proviso to that Section that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the Government in this behalf by general or special order, he can also investigate in such offences without the order of the concerned Magistrate. It has, further, been provided in the second proviso of Section 17 of the Act that where an offence referred to in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act is sought to be investigated, such an investigation shall not be conducted without the order of a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Superintendent of Police authorising Shri Victor Tirki, Inspector to investigate the impugned offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner on the ground that the Superintendent of Police while passing the order authorising Shri Victor Tirki did not apply his mind and mechanically passed the order. In support of his contention, he has drawn my attention on the photocopy of the order and has also contended that the order is in the typed proforma and the blanks have been filled in and some of the blanks are still unfilled which clearly show that the Superintendent of Police has not applied his mind. With a view to fortify his contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajanlal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 = JT 1990 (4) SC 650 = 1992 (1) SCC (Supp.) 335.
7. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Shri Ram Singh and Ors., 2000 (1) M.P.H.T. 558 (SC), the Supreme Court has considered the dictum in Choudhary Bhajanlal's case (supra). In the Shri Ram Singh's case (supra), this Court (High Court of M.P.) held that the statutory legal requirement of disclosing the reason for according the permission to investigate the offence has not been given by the Superintendent of Police and the impugned order was passed mechanically and in a very casual manner. The Apex Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra) did not agree with the finding of this Court and held as under :--
"We are not satisfied with the finding of the High Court that merely because the order of the Superintendent of Police was in typed proforma, that showed the non-application of the mind or could be held to have been passed in a mechanical and casual manner."
8. In the present case, the impugned order does not contain the Memo No. and the date of the order, though the date has been given below the signature of the Superintendent of Police. It has also been pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that out of the typed designation of the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police or Inspector, one of them has not been deleted. As held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra), these are not the serious infirmities which could be made a basis for holding that the Superintendent of Police did not apply his mind while passing the impugned order. Though the Memo number has not been given in the impugned order but a perusal of the order clearly discloses that the crime number has been mentioned against the name of the petitioner. A reading of the impugned order of the Superintendent of Police manifestly reveals that this order pertains to the crime allegedly committed by the petitioner and investigation into the crime has been entrusted to Shri Victor Tirki, Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Karyalaya, Raipur.
9. The Supreme Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra) has also held as under :--
"Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The overall public interest and the social object is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of the Act and decided cases under it."
10. In H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196, the Supreme Court has held that a defect or illegality in investigation, however, serious has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial.
11. In view of the above decision of Supreme Court and in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra), it is abundantly clear that the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The impugned order of the Superintendent of Police clearly indicates the name of the petitioner, Crime Number, nature of the offence and power of the Superintendent of Police permitting him to authorise Shri Victor Tirki, Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Karyalaya, Raipur to investigate the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. It, therefore, cannot be accepted as contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order and that the impugned order was passed by him mechanically and in a very casual manner.
12. For the reasons stated above, the petition does not deserve to be allowed, hence the petition is hereby dismissed. Since the matter has not been considered on merits, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the objections regarding the merits of the case before the trial Court while the matter is considered for framing of charges against him.