TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al filed by the State. On 9.9.1996, the Inspector of Police (Vigilance Anti- Corruption), Tirucharapalli on the basis of the information received that the respondent-accused was indulging in corrupt practices by extracting money from the drivers and owners of the motor vehicles while conducting check of the vehicles and making use of certain bogus notice forms in the process, prepared the First Information Report, registered the crime under Sections 420, 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A copy of the FIR was submitted to the Court of CJM cum- Special Judge, Tirucharapalli. He then proceeded to take up investigation, gathered information, examined the witnesses and filed the cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ognizable offence impelled by the information received from some sources is not outside the purview of the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the Code. The scheme of Sections 154,156 and 157 was clarified thus by Subba Rao, J. speaking for the Court in State of U.P. vs. Bhagwant Kishore [AIR 1964 SC 221]. Section 154 of the Code prescribes the mode of recording the information received orally or in writing by an officer in charge of a police station in respect of the commission of a cognizable offence. Section 156 thereof authorizes such an officer to investigate any cognizable offence prescribed therein. Though ordinarily investigation is undertaken on information received by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olice officer proceeds to investigate after registering the FIR on his own, the investigation would necessarily be unfair or biased. In the present case, the police officer received certain discreet information, which, according to his assessment, warranted a probe and therefore made up his mind to investigate. The formality of preparing the FIR in which he records the factum of having received the information about the suspected commission of the offence and then taking up the investigation after registering the crime, does not, by any semblance of reasoning, vitiate the investigation on the ground of bias or the like factor. If the reason which weighed with the High Court could be a ground to quash the prosecution, the powers of investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first information report for taking action against the appellant. It is difficult to understand how in these circumstances, Head Constable Ram Singh could undertake investigation? This is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case . It is not clear as to why the Court was called upon to make the comments against the propriety of the Head Constable informant investigating the case when the reinvestigation was done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Be that as it may, it is possible to hold on the basis of the facts noted above, that the so called investigation by the Head Constable himself would be a mere ritual. The crime itself was directed towards the Head Constable which made him lodge the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case . The Court then observed: PW 3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation . The conviction was set aside by this Court for the above reasons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven before the trial commenced. Viewed from any angle, we see no illegality in the process of investigation set in motion by the Inspector of Police (appellant) and his action in submitting the final report to the Court of Special Judge. In the written submissions filed after the conclusion of hearing, it is contended that the Inspector of Police had no jurisdiction to investigate the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without the order of a Magistrate of 1st Class and it was only the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was competent to investigate. Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 has been adverted to in this connection. That is not the ground which was urged before the High Court or even in the SLP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
