The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of an invalid investigation on trial proceedings and the requirement for the Special Judge to dispose of the case within a specified period.

( 1 ). IN this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , the petitioner- accused seeks setting aside of the order dated 17th November, 1999 and quashing of FIR No. 56/96 and the proceedings emanating therefrom, pending before a special Judge, Delhi.

( 2 ). In short, the allegations made against the petitioner are that on a complaint made on 11th December, 1996 by one Raghunath, after observing legal formalities a trap was laid. Petitioner demanded Rs. 5. 000/- by way of bribe money from said raghunath in the presence of S. Natrajan, witness. After taking money from his left hand the petitioner put it on the dash board of his Maruti Van No. DL-3c-7818 wherefrom it was recovered by Ranjit Ekka, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, delhi. After registering FIR No. 56/96 under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ), recording statements of PWs, collecting report from CFSL and obtaining sanction to prosecute dated llth December, 1998 from General Manager (D and PR), SBI, a charge-sheet under the said provisions was submitted against the petitioner on 4th January, 1999.

( 3 ). In terms of aforesaid order dated 17th November, 1999, application seeking discharge was declined by the Special Judge seized of the case.

( 4 ). Submission advanced by Mr. R. M. Bagai for petitioner was mainly two-fold - (i) investigation was conducted in breach of the provision of Section 17 of the Act as it was not done by a duly authorised police officer and (ii) Sanctioning Authority did not apply its mind while according the sanction to prosecute petitioner dated 11 th December, 1998. Elaborating the submission, it was pointed out that neither the representation (s) made by petitioner against grant of sanction to prosecute nor enquiry report sent by CBI to the bank was considered by the Sanctioning authority. My attention was also drawn to the sanction order dated 11th December, 1998 wherein it was not specifically mentioned thatrepresentation (s) and/or report sent by CBI were taken note of by the Sanctioning Authority at the time of making the said sanction order. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707; Mond. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677; Vishnu Kondaji Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 1205; Bhisham Kumar v. State, II (1999) CCR 521=79 (1999) DLT 14; State by CBI, cc, TV (2001) SLT 383=11 (2001) CCR 309=2001 (4) Scale 435; and State of Punjab v. Hamek Singh, II (2002) SLT 27=1 (2002) CCR 167 (SC)=2002 (2) Scale 179.

( 5 ). Coming to first limb of submission, in the reply filed to the petition by State, it is stated that there had been a Notification No. F. 12 (7 ). 86-H. P. II dated 31st July, 1986 by the Administrator of Delhi ever since the Anti-Corruption Branch came into existence in the National Capital Territory of Delhi authorising the Inspector of AC branch to investigate cases under the Act. Non-issuance of Notification after the Act came into force, was only a technical flaw which was rectified vide Notification No. F. 1 (1)/99-DOV/1555-1561 dated 15thmarch,1999. Copiesofboththesenotincations have been filed by way of Annexures I and II alongwith the reply. To be noted that in terms of Notification dated 31st July, 1986, Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi administration at Tis Hazari, Delhi, was notified as a Police Station for the offences relating to illegal gratification under Sections 161,162,163,164,165,165-A, IPC as also under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with aforesaid offences and any other offence committed in the course of same transaction arising out of same set of facts. In terms of Notification dated 15th March, 1999, Inspectors of Police working in anti-Corruption Branch, Government of NCT of Delhi were authorised to investigate offences punishable under the Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate and arres