JUDGMENT :

A.L. Dave, J.

The State has approached this Court with this Criminal Revision Application, on being aggrieved by an order passed by the Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur on 3rd May, 2006, below the Report filed by Police Inspector, ACB, Palanpur, Banaskantha, seeking Summary 'A', in respect of a trap conducted against the present respondent, who was then Sub Divisional Officer Telegraph, Palanpur ('SDOT' for short).

2. The case against respondent was that he had demanded a bribe amount of Rs.500/- from one Muslim Nizamuddin Ansari, who, in turn, lodged a complaint with the ACB, Palanpur. Summary 'A' was sought on the ground that the complainant as well as panch - Rajeshkumar Gaurishankar Rawal had given inconsistent statements and therefore, the accused was not required to be sent for facing trial. The Principal District Judge has passed following order :

“Heard,

Accused is traceable. There is no question of granting “A” Summary. It is nobody's case that accused is absconding. If at all, I.O. fact that evidence is not sufficient to prosecute the accused. He may apply under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. Hence rejected as it is not tenable at law.“

3. The above order is challenged by the State in this revision application on the ground that though the accused was traceable, there was insufficient material to prosecute the accused and therefore, 'A' Summary was required to be granted, which the learned Judge has refused to do on the ground that in such a situation, Summary 'A' cannot be granted and that the investigating officer may apply under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) for releasing the accused when evidence is deficient. Learned APP Mr. Kodekar submitted that both the grounds, on which, the prayer was rejected by the Special Court, are not legally justified and hence, this revision.

4. The revision application is opposed to by learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondent - original accused.

5. Having heard both the sides, this Court is of the view that this revision application deserves to be allowed for the reason that the lower Court, while passing the order, has erred in interpreting the provisions contained in law.

6. Before proceeding to discuss the law, certain factual aspects need to be stated first.

6.1 On the basis of a complaint of demand of bribe, a trap was conducted and thereafter, when the statements were recorded, complainant as well as the panch witness gave inconsistent statements and therefore, the investigating officer tendered the said application for grant of Summary 'A' before the Special Court. Thus, it was not a case where the accused was not traceable, but, Summary 'A' was sought on the ground that there is no evidence to justify the accused being sent up to the Court for trial.

7. The provisions contained in various statutes are required to be seen in backdrop of above indisputable and undisputed facts.

7.1 In the first instance, reference may be made to the Code of Criminal Procedure, where, Chapter XII deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. Upon receiving information as to congisable offence under Section 154, the investigating officer has to register the offence and start the investigation. If during the course of investigation he arrests a suspect, it is expected that he produces the suspect before Magistrate within twenty four hours. Section 167 of the Code contemplates the procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. It also contemplates default bail. Section 169 of the Code contemplates the situation where the accused is required to be released by the investigating officer on his personal bond if the investigating officer finds that there is no material to send the accused for trial. Section 170 of the Code deals with situation of cases which are required to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. Section 173 of the Code is a section which deals with various situations including further