TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act the investigation had not been conducted by an authorised officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act. It was observed: It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any ulterior motive. The prosecution of the accused on the basis of investigation by a person who had no legal authority to investigate cannot be allowed. In order to appreciate the legal controversy, it is proper to refer to some of the facts regarding which there does not appear to be any dispute at this stage in these appeals. 3. Regarding Ram Singh respondent, a secret information is stated to have been received on 4-7-1992 alleging that when he was a Sub Inspector, Excise and District Excise Officer, he had acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. On verification it was found that he had earned movable and immovable properties allegedly much more disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter investigation it had transpired that during the check period, the respondent had a total income of Rs. 3,13,470.68 from all known sources and his expenditure being Rs. 16,25,723.49. Thus the disproportionate amount came to Rs. 13,12,252.81 which was stated to be 350 times more than the known sources of his income. After investigation sanction was obtained and charge-sheet was filed. The initial investigation was conducted by Shri B.N. Bhatia, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Gwalior and thereafter by Shri D.S. Rana, Inspector SPE. Gwalior who was stated to have been duly authorised by the Superintendent of Police, SPE, Gwalior vide order No. SPE/2766/94 dated 12-12-1994. The order of the Superintendent of Police was claimed to be strictly under Section 17 of the Act. 5. Respondent Jagdish Prasad was appointed as a Sub-Inspector and was also holding the post of A.D.E.G. On 16-11-1984 Preliminary Enquiry No. 120/84 was registered against him. On 7-5-1985 one Shri Tara Chand, resident of Dahimandi, Gwalior filed a complaint against the said respondent whereupon another Preliminary Enquiry No. 5/85 was registered which was taken for investigation. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing of the Investigation and consequent proceedings in Crime No. 17/ 94 which was allowed vide the order impugned in these appeals. 7. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignancies the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but. aimed and targeted against them. II affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society, 8. The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by first and second world war conditions. The corruption, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slature to remove the ambiguity by construing the provision of the Statute as a whole keeping In view what was the mischief when the Statute was enacted and to remove which the Legislature enacted the Statute. The rule of construction is so universally accepted that it need not be supported by precedents. Adopting this rule of construction, whenever a question of construction arises upon ambiguity or where two views are possible of a provision, it would be the duty of the Court to adopt that construction which would advance the object underlying the Act, namely, to make effective provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption and at any rate not defeat it. 10. 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. 11. For the purposes of deciding these appeals reference to Sections 13 and 17 of the Act is necessary. Section 13 deals with the criminal misconduct of the public servants and prescribes the punishment for the commission of offence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and provides: 17. Persons authorised to investigate-Notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, 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 CrPC, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police. (c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank. shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and marked it to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar. The complaint along with the above endorsement of OSD and DGP was put up before the SP on 21 -11-1987 on which date the SP made his endorsement reading Please register a case and investigate. The Station House Officer of the Police Station registered a case on the basis of the allegations in the complaint under Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After forwarding the copy of the First Information Report to the Magistrate and other officers concerned, the SHO took up the investigation and proceeded to the spot accompanied by his staff. At this stage Shri Bhajan Lal filed Writ Petition No. 9172/87 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the First Information Report and issuance of directions restraining the police from further proceeding with the investigation. The High Court held that allegations made in the complaint do not constitute a cognizable offence for commencing a lawful investigation and granted relief as prayed for by the petitioner therein. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the State of Haryana preferred a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances which impelled the SP to pass the order directing the SHO to investigate the case; (3) as the said direction manifestly seems to have been granted mechanically and in a very casual mariner, regardless of the principles of law enunciated by this Court and (4) as the SHO had got neither any order from the Magistrate to investigate the offences under Sections 161 and 165 I.P.C. nor any order from the SP for investigation of the offences under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the manner known to law, the order of direction reading only investigate suffered from legal infirmity. The Court found that despite quashing the direction of the SP and the investigation thereupon would not, in any manner, deter the State of Haryana to pursue the matter and direct the investigation afresh in pursuance of the FIR, if the State so desire. 13. It may be noticed at this stage that a three Judge Bench of this Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 1955CriLJ526 had 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. Referring to the provisions of Sections 190, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. That an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial is well settled as appears from the cases in -Prabhu v. Emperor and -'Lumbhardar Zutshi v. The King AIR 1950 PC 26 : 1950 Cri LJ 644. It further held (Para 10 of AIR, Cri LJ): In our opinion, therefore, when such a breach is brought to the notice of the Court at any early stage of the trial, the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such investigation as may be called, for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of Section 5-A of the Act. It is in the light of the above considerations that the validity or otherwise of the objection as to the violation of Section 5(4) of the Act has to be decided and the course to be adopted in these proceedings, determined. In Bhajan Lal's case 1992CriLJ527 this Court had found on facts that the SP had passed the order mechanically and in a very casual manner regardless of the settled principles of law. The provisions of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances the High Court had quashed the investigation and consequent proceedings in a case registered against Shri Ram Babu Gupta against which Criminal Appeal No. 1754 of 1986 was filed in this Court which was allowed on 27th September, 1986 by setting aside the order of the High Court with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein. 14. 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. As noticed earlier the order clearly indicates the name of the accused, the number of FIR, nature of the offence and power of Superintendent of Police permitting him to authorise a junior officer to investigate. The time between the registration of the FIR and authorisation in terms of second proviso to Section 17 shows further the application of mind and the circumstances which weighed with the Superintendent of Police to direct authorisation to order the investigation. 15. Under these circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
