IMPORTANT POINT
Section 23 of the Prevention, of Corruption Act 'a' analogous to Section 212 of Criminal Procedure Codes in a charge u/s.13 of the Act it is sufficient to describe the property in respect of which the offence was committed & the dates between which offence was committed without specifying particular items or exact dates provided the time between the first & the last of such dates does not exceed one year.

JUDGMENT

Pareed Pillay, J. - Appellant is the accused in C.C. 13 of 1987 of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trivandrum. Accused challenges the conviction and sentence entered against him by the. Special Judge.

2. The Special Judge held that in respect of transactions 5 to 11 there is absolutely no acceptable evidence. With regard to items 1 to 4 the Special Judge held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused.

3. Appellant raised three contentions before this Court. His first contention is that Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case as when the Court framed charge on 18-1-1984 the accused was not a Government servant as he had already retired from service. Accused retired from service on 30-4-1983. The court framed charge on 18-1-1984. The prosecution case is that the accused misappropriated Rs. 9, 781.60 during 21-30-1978 to 23-3-1978. Admittedly during that period accused was a Government servant and as the offences were committed by him as a Government servant there is no merit in the contention that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case. If the argument of the appellant's counsel is accepted, it will lead to ridiculous result. It may be then open to a Government servant to misappropriate any amount on a day prior to his retirement and take up the stand that no action can be taken against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Merely because the charge was framed only after his retirement the accused cannot contend that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try him. As investigation preceded the framing of the charge and as the accused happened to retire at a time prior to the charge it is not possible to hold that the Court lacked jurisdiction to try him under the Act.

4. The second contention is that under Section 17(c) of the Act the investigation has to be done by a Deputy Superintendent or a Police of or a Police Officer of equivalent rank and as the investigation was not so done the consequent trial is vitiated. First proviso to Section 17 states that a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police can be authorised by the State Government by general or special order to investigate any offence under the Act even without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make any arrest there for without a warrant. Section 17(c) postulates investigation by a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police' officer of equivalent rank. But the investigation can be done by a police officer below that rank if it is ordered by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class. The first proviso enables the Government also to order investigation by an officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police even without Magistrate's order. The Government can do so either by a special order or by general order. The learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the Government Notification No. 43837/F4/65/Home dated 12-9-1966 which shows that in exercise of the powers conferred by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 the Government authorised police officers not below the rank of Inspector of Police to investigate any offence punishable under Sections 161, 165 or 165A of the I.P.C. or Section 5 of the P.C. Act 1947 without the order of a Magistrate of the First Class or to make any arrest therefore without a warrant within the area of jurisdiction of the particular Police Station to which the police officer is attached for purpose of investigation provided that an offence referred to in clause (e) or sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. In view of the above notification, there is no merit in the contention of the accused that the investigation being not done by a Deputy Superintendent of Police