An invalid investigation does not nullify the cognizance or trial based thereon, and an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the court for trial.

JUDGMENT

H.K. SEMA, J.- Heard the learned counsel for the State.

2. Despite the notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. The factual matrix may be briefly recited. The respondent was working as Upper Division Clerk-cum-Storekeeper in the office of the District Education Officer. He was charged under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After the investigation was completed a charge-sheet was submitted on which cognizance was taken and charge was framed against the respondent on 18-6-1991. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence. It is at that stage the respondent moved an application for discharge on the ground that the investigation was not done by a competent police officer as per the proviso of Section 5-A(1)(d) of the Prevention of 9 Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The learned Special Judge after considering the application rejected the said application on the ground that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent. It was also noticed that the case was directed to be investigated by the Assistant Inspector General. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court. By the impugned order the High h Court has quashed the investigation and the charge solely on the ground that the investigation has not been carried on by a competent officer as contemplated under Section 5-A(1)(d) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh by special leave.

4. While granting leave this Court on 6-6-1999 suspended the operation of the impugned order and permitted further proceedings to continue.

S. Learned counsel for the State contended that the impugned order of the High Court is contrary to the settled principle of law enunciated by this Court in a catena of decisions and it is liable to be set aside. Avoiding multiplicity, we may refer to a decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Singh1. This Court in Ram Singh1 after noticing the various decisions of this Court, inter alia, held that a defect or illegality in the investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. In a recent decision in the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja2 in which one of us (G.P. Mathur, J.) is the author of the judgment after noticing the various decisions of this Court pointed out in paras 20 and 21 of the judgment as under: (SCC pp. 209-10)

"20. Thus the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the first information report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of the police station in court under Section 173(2) CrPC, this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency.

21. An incidental question as to what will be the result of any error or illegality in investigation on trial of the accused before the court may also be examined. Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 provided that no police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under Section 161, Section 165 and Section 165-A IPC or under Section 5 of the said Act without the order of a Magistrate of the First Class. In H.N. Rishbutf3 the investigation was entirely completed by an officer of the rank lower than the Deputy Superintendent of Police and after permission was accorded a little or no further investigation was made. The Special Judge quashed the proceedings on the ground that the investigation on the basis of which the accused were being prosecuted was in contravention of the provisions of the Act, but the said order was set aside by the High Court. The appeal preferred by the accused to this Court assailing the judgment of the High Court was dismissed