SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 848

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Union of India etc. Rep. through Superintendent of Police – Appellants
Versus
T. Nathamuni – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs……..………....OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.2521-2522 of 2014)
Decided On : 01-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if investigation suffers from lack of jurisdiction but thereby no prejudice has been caused to the accused or there is no miscarriage of justice it does not warrant interference.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17 – In case of investigation under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, an officer below the rank of Inspector cannot investigate without the order of a competent Magistrate – Instantly order of Special Judge obtained by filing an application – Investigation pursuant to such order of permission not suffering from lack of jurisdiction – Objection as to lack of jurisdiction raised after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet – No case of prejudice or miscarriage of justice due to investigation by Sub-Inspector of Police made out – High Court not right in interfering with such investigation – That too when it was already completed. (Para 12, 19)

       AIR 1971 SC 508; AIR 1971 SC 1525; AIR 1992 SC 604; (1973) 1 SCC 726 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       A case being RC 50(A)/2009 was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Chennai against respondent -T. Nathamuni, Inspector of Income Tax on the allegation that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/-from the complainant.

       Initially, the case was investigated by Mr. Lawrence, Inspector of Police and owing to some administrative reasons, the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai filed petition under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the Court of Special Judge CBI cases, Madurai seeking permission for investigation of the case by Shri G.A. Suriya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, instead of Mr. Lawrence, Inspector of Police.

       The Special Judge for CBI cases, Madurai allowed the aforesaid petition permitting G.A. Suriya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the case.

       After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Madurai and the Court took cognizance and assigned it CC No.7/2009.

       During the course of trial, the respondent moved the High Court preferring criminal original petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.7/2009 on the ground that there is correction in the FIR and sanction was not accorded by proper authority. Respondent also preferred another petition to call for the records and to quash the order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Madurai in Crl. M.P. No.549 of 2009 permitting Shri GA Suriya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the case.

       The High Court set aside aforesaid order of the Trial Court.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.O.P. No.1943 & 6464 of 2010, whereby the High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial court permitting a Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the matter under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on the basis of a complaint from one S. Muniraj a case being RC 50(A)/2009 was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Chennai against respondent -T. Nathamuni, Inspector of Income Tax on the allegation that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/-from the complainant. A trap was laid and allegedly the accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. Initially, the case was investigated by Mr. Lawrence, Inspector of Police and owing to some administrative reasons, the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai filed petition dated 22.9.2007 under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, ‘the Act’) before the Court of Special Judge CBI cases, Madurai seeking permission for investigation of the case by Shri G.A. Suriya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, instead of Mr. Lawrence, Inspector of Police.

4. The Special Judge for CBI cases, Madurai vide order dated 24.09.2009 allowed the aforesaid petition permitting G.A. Suriya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet dated 01.12.2009 was filed in the Court of Special Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Madurai and the Court took cognizance and assigned it CC No.7/2009.

5. During the course of trial, the respondent moved the High Court preferring criminal original petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.7/2009 on the ground that there is correction in the FIR and sanction was not accorded by proper authority. Respondent also preferred another petition to call for the records and to quash the order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Madurai in Crl. M.P. No.549 of 2009 permitting Shri GA Suriya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the case.

6. The High Court vide its impugned order dated 5.7.2013 set aside aforesaid order of the Trial Court on the ground that Section 17 of the Act provides that if the officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police is authorized by the Government, such officer can investigate the case without permission of the Court. There is no specific provision in Section 17 of the Act that the Sub-Inspector of Police is also empowered to investigate the case with the permission of the Court. The High Court further observed that the Special Court without assigning any reason in the order permitted the Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the matter and the same is not in accordance with law.

7. Hence, these appeals by special leave by the Union of India as well as the State.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that Special Judge granted permission to aforesaid Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, Chennai to investigate the case and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. Learned counsel contended that the High Court interpreted Section 17 of the Act erroneously. The provisions of Section 17(a) of the Act prescribe that without the permission of the Court, the investigation of the case below the rank of Inspector of Police shall not be done. But in this case, the investigation was done with the order of the Court. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of Section 5(3) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Ins




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top