Important Point
Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The overall public interest and the social object is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of the Act and decided cases under it.

Headnote:(i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Purpose and object of Act—Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat object sought to be achieved.
       Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society. (Para 7)
       The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by first and second world war conditions. The corruption, at the initial stages, was considered confined to the bureaucracy who had the opportunities to deal with a variety to State largesse in the form of contracts, licences and grants. Even after the war the opportunities for corruption continued as large amounts of Government surplus stores were required to be disposed of by the public servants. As consequence of the wars the shortage of various goods necessitated the imposition of controls and extensive schemes of post-war reconstruction involving the disbursement of huge sums of money which lay in the control of the public servants giving them wide discretion with the result of luring them to the glittering shine of the wealth and property. In order to consolidate and amend the laws relating to prevention of corruption and matters connected thereto, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was enacted which was amended from time to time. In the year 1988 a new Act on the subject being Act No. 49 of 1988 was enacted with the object of dealing with the circumstances, contingencies and shortcomings which were noticed in the working and implementation of 1947 Act. The law relating to prevention of corruption was essentially made to deal with the public servants, as understood in the common parlance but specifically defined in the Act. The Act was intended to make effective provision for the prevention of bribe and corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation defined to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. (Paras 8 & 9)
       Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The overall public interest and the social object is required to be kept in mind interpreting various provisions of the Act and decided cases under it. (Para 10)
       (ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 13 r/w Section 17—Investigation into offence—Legality of—High Court quashing prosecution proceedings and charge sheet on ground that investigation was not conducted by an authorised officer in terms of Section 17 as authorisation of Superintendent of police being in typed proforma there was no application of mind—Unsustainable—Order of Superintendent of Police clearly indicated name of accused, number of FIR, nature of offence and power of Superintendent of Police permitting him to authorise junior officer to investigate—High Court’s order set aside.
       The High Court quashed the prosecution proceedings stating that for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act the investigation had not been conducted by an authorised officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act. The High Court observed : “It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any uterior motive. The prosecution of the accused on the basis of investigation by a person who had no legal authority to investigate cannot be allowed.”
       Held : According to the first proviso to Section 17 if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the Government in this behalf by general or special order, he can also investigate in such offences without the order of Metropolitan Magistrate or the Magistrate of First Class, as the case may be, or make arrest thereof without a warrant. Regarding compliance of this part of the section there is no controversy in the present appeals. However, the second proviso provides that where an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 is sought to be investigated, such an investigation shall not be conducted without the order of a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. There is no denial of the fact that in cases against the respondents in these appeals, even in the absence of the authority of the SP the Investigating Officer was in law authorised to investigate the offence falling under Section 13 of the Act with the exception of one as is described under sub-section (1)(e) of the Act. After registration of the FIR the Superintendent of Police in the instant appeals is shown to be aware and conscious of the allegations made against the respondents, the FIR registered against them and pending investigations. The order passed by the SP in case of Ram Singh on 12.12.1994 with respect to a Crime registered in 1992 was to the effect : “In exercise of powers conferred by the provisions on me, under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, l P.K. Runwal, Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Division-I Lokayukt Karyalaya, Gwalior Division Gwalior (M.P.), authorised Shri. D.S. Rana Insp-(SPE) Lak-GWL (M.P.) to investigate Crime No. 103/92 under Sections 13(1)(E), 23(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Shri Ram Singh-D.O. Excise Batul (M.P.)”. The reason for entrustment of investigation were obvious. The High Court should not have liberally construed the provisions in the Actin favour of the accused resulting in closure of the trial of the serious charges made against the respondents in relation to commission of offences punishable under an Act legislated to curb the illegal and corrupt practices of the public officers. (Paras 11 & 13)
       We are not satisfied with the finding of the High Court that merely because the order of the Superintendent of Police was in typed proforma, that showed the non-application of the mind or could be held to have been passed in a mechanical and casual manner. As noticed earlier the order clearly indicates the name of the accused, the number of FIR, nature of the offence and power of Superintendent of Police permitting him to authorise a junior officer to investigate. The time between the registration of the FIR and authorisation in terms of second proviso to Section 17 shows further the application of mind and the circumstances which weighed with the Superintendent of Police to direct authorisation to order the investigation. Under these circumstances the appeals are allowed and the judgments of the High Court impugned in these appeals regarding the interpretation of Section 17 and holding the investigation to have not been investigated by an authorised officer being not sustainable in law are hereby set aside with the direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the provisions of law. (Paras 15 & 16)
       Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgment

Sethi, J.—Heard. Leave granted.

2. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1 and exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide the judgment impugned in these appeals quashed the investigations and consequent proceedings against the respondents initiated, conducted and concluded by the police under Sections 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Court found that for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act the investigation had not been conducted by an authorised officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act. It was observed :

“It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any ulterior motive. The prosecution of the accused on the basis of investigation by a person who had no legal authority to investigate cannot be allowed.”

In order to appreciate the legal controversy, it is proper to refer to some of the facts regarding which there does not appear to be any dispute at this stage in these appeals.

3. Regarding Ram Singh respondent, a secret information is stated to have been received on 4.7.1992 alleging that when he was a Sub Inspector, Excise and District Excise Officer, he had acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. On verification it was found that he had earned movable and immovable properties allegedly much more disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period commencing from 1.1.1982 to 4.8.1992. Resultantly Crime No. 103/92 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act was registered against him. On 4.8.1992 a raid was conducted by Shri B.N. Bhatia, Dy. Superintendent of Police, SPE, Lokayukt Office, Gwalior after obtaining a search warrant from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior and a seizure memo was prepared with respect to recovery of movable articles from the possession of his son, namely Pratap Singh, Advocate. On 7.8.1992 another raid was conducted by Shri C.P.S. Chaturvedi, Dy. Supdt. of Police, Lokayukt Office, Gwalior at the Government Quarter allotted to the said respondent at Vikas Nagar, Betul, under a search warrant dated 3.8.1992. Some documents, one transistor, one pistol and diaries were recovered in the raid. The respondent Shri Ram Singh moved Criminal Misc. No. 143 of 1993 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior praying for anticipatory bail which was allowed. Vide letter dated 14.2.1993, the Additional Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior directed the respondent to submit the statement on the prescribed form Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the Lokayukt Gwalior. The statements were submitted to Shri P.S. Sisodia, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lakayukt Office, Moti Mahal, Gwalior on 16.5.1994. It was mentioned in the statement that the total income of the respondent from all sources was Rs. 4,19,000/- and expenditure was Rs. 2,58,700/- which show the savings of Rs. 1.60,300/-. He declared that his assets were not disproportionate to the known sources of his income. After further information was submitted by the respondent, a further enquiry was made on 5.6.1995 with respect to his bank account. In May, 1996 the respondent filed the Petition No. 2481/96 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the proceedings relating to Crime No. 143/93 and charge-sheet thereof filed against him. He contended that the entire search and seizure made by Special Police Establishment was illegal, malafide and without any basis. It was further contended that the search was conducted without jurisdiction and was in contravention of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. He alleged that the investigation was malicious i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (2)