JUDGMENT

OJHA, J.:— This appeal by special leave preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 10th March, 1987 in Civil Misc. Writ Petri. No. 15545 of 1984 (reported in 1987 Cri LJ 1188) raises a question about the interpretation and scope of Regulation 486(1)(3) of the U.P. Police Regulations, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. The respondent Surinder Pal Singh who was a Station Officer of Police Station, Shikohabad was promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 20th June, 1977. A first Information Report was lodged against him in the Police Station, Shikohabad on 8th June, 1980 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Agra Circle under sections 409/392/203/218/ 342/120-B of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under sections 4/20 of the Treasure Trove Act. According to this First Information Report while digging some land on l st March, 1977, one Parsu Ram Jatav and Jaipal Jatav found 20 gold bricks which they failed to deposit with the authorities. However, on receiving an information in this behalf from one Hiralal and Vinod Kumar, the said gold was recovered by the respondent but was misappropriated. Investigation was carried on by an Inspector in the Crime Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department. Before however any charge-sheet could be submitted, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the legality of the investigation by, an officer junior in rank to him. The writ, petition was contested by the appellants but was allowed by the judgment appealed against relying on Regulation 486(1)(3) of the Regulations and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the appellants not to submit any charge sheet on the basis of the (Sic) Crime Branch. It was, however, left open to the appellants to get the investigation conducted by an officer competent to investigate under the aforesaid Regulation who could submit a charge sheet.

2. In order to appreciate the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, Regulation 486(1)(3) may usefully be reproduced. It reads :

"486. When the offence alleged against a police officer amounts to an offence only under section 7 of the Police Act, there can be no magisterial inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases, and in other cases until and unless a magisterial inquiry is ordered, inquiry will be made under the direction of the Superintendent of Police in accordance with the following rules :-

I. Every information received by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer shall be dealt with in the first place under Chapter XIV, Criminal Procedure Code, according to law, a case under the appropriate section being registered in the police station concerned provided that -

(1) ........................

(2) ........................

(3) Unless investigation is refused by the Superintendent of Police under section 157(1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code, and not ordered by the District Magistrate under section 159, or unless the District Magistrate orders a magisterial inquiry under section 159, investigation under section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, shall be made by a police officer selected by the Superintendent of Police and higher in rank than the officer charged;

(4) .........................."

3. The High Court relying on the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh V. Babu Ram Upadhya (196 1) 2 S CR 679 took the view that since the provisions of Reg. 486(1)(3) were mandatory, the investigation made by an Inspector of the Crime Branch who was not an officer "higher in rank than the officer charged" namely the respondent, was clearly vitiated in law.

4. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the respondent was alleged to have committed an offence inter alia under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also the investigation made by the Inspecto