1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/AO seeks to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No. 01/ACB-WKH/2017 of ACB, Khammam Range, Khammam, registered for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C.Act”).

2. The brief allegations in the FIR are that the AO joined in service as Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector on 11.03.1994 and worked in that capacity at several places for 12 years and got promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector on 21.12.2006. Presently, he is working as M.V. Inspector of Bhadradri, Kothagudem District. During the check period from 11.03.1994 to 03.02.2017, he acquired assets worth Rs.1,55,45,500/-. His probable income during the check period was Rs.80,00,000/- and his probable expenditure was Rs.55,56,400/-. Hence, his likely savings should be Rs.24,43,600/-. However, his assets are worth Rs.1,55,45,500/- and thus AO is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income worth Rs.1,31,01,900/-. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Khammam Range, Khammam, on authorization issued by the Joint Director (T), ACB Telangana, Hyderabad, vide proceedings C.No.2/ACB-JD(T)/2017 dated 02.02.2017, registered the FIR for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act.

3. Investigation is reported to be pending.

4. Heard arguments of Sri K.R. Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB (Telangana).

5 (a) The main ground on which learned counsel for petitioner seeks annulment of the FIR is that an Inspector of Police, ACB, has no power to register and investigate any of the offences including the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. He would strenuously argue that as per Section 17 of P.C. Act, only the Deputy Superintendent of Police or Police Officer of equivalent rank shall register and investigate any offence under P.C. Act. Admitting that as per the first proviso to the aforesaid Section, a police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police can also investigate the offences under P.C.Act, he would however submit that such Inspector of Police shall be authorised by the State Government in this behalf by a general or special order but in the instant case, there is no general or special order issued by the State of Telangana to the Inspector of Police to investigate the present case on hand. Hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

(b) Another ground canvassed by him is that even assuming that the State Government have, by notification, authorised the Inspector of Police, ACB, to investigate the offence still, by such authorisation, he is not empowered to “register the crime”. Differentiating between the two acts i.e, registration of FIR and investigation, learned counsel would argue that ACB Police Stations are constituted under the designation of DSP, ACB and being Station House Officer, he alone shall register the FIR but the Inspector of Police, ACB, who is not designated as the SHO, cannot register FIR though he may have been authorised to investigate the offence by the notification issued by the State Government. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in T.R. Shivaramu v. Anti Corruption Bureau (W.P.No.4309/2017(GM-Res) connected with Crl.P.No.6886/2016 dt.22.02.2017).

He thus prayed to quash the proceedings.

6(a) In oppugnation, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB (“Spl.P.P”) would argue that in the instant case, the mandate of Section 17 of P.C.Act was strictly followed in the course of registration and investigation of the crime. In expatiation, learned Spl.P.P argued that the Government of A.P have issued notification under G.O.Ms.No.170, General Administration (SC-D) Dept. dt.20.03.1968, whereby it has authorised the Inspectors of Police of ACB of Andhra Pradesh to register and investigate the offences under