The question which arises for consideration is whether before registering a crime on the basis of a private complaint forwarded to the Vigilance Special Cell for investigation under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. from the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, is it mandatory that the Vigilance Special Cell has to conduct a preliminary enquiry.

The petitioner is the accused in a Crime registered by VACB Special Cell, Kozhikode. The above crime was registered by the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell, Kozhikode on the basis of a complaint forwarded from the Court under S. 156(3) Cr. P.C. for investigation. The private complaint was given by the second respondent in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Kozhikode and it was from that Court, it was forwarded to the police for investigation. At the time of registering the crime, Annexure B FIR was prepared by the Superintendent of Police.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income since January, 1990 while he was working in various posts in the Public Works Department. Crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under S. 13(2) read with S. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This Crl. M.C. is filed for quashing Annexure-A complaint, Annexure-B, FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No. 1 of 1999 of the VACB Special Cell, Kozhikode.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before registering the crime, the Superintendent of Police would have conducted a preliminary enquiry. The contention is that because the crime was registered without conducting a preliminary enquiry, registering of the crime cannot be said to be proper. Another point raised is that the Special Judge has no authority to send a private complaint under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. to the police for investigation. It is on the above two grounds that quashing of the complaint, the FIR and all further proceedings in the crime is sought for. In P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 520 : (1971 Cri LJ 523) it was held by the Supreme Court that before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publically charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. In the above case, the Chief Minister when he received a petition containing allegations against the Chief Engineer, asked the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to make confidential enquiries. The Chief Minister obtained a report from the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption after making enquiries and then the Chief Minister gave a note to the P.W.D. Secretary stating that he had already received a report from the Director of vigilance and the matter has to be looked into. The P.W.D. Secretary was also informed that the Chief Minister had already asked the Director of Vigilance to pursue investigation in the matter. The Chief Secretary orally ordered a full-fledged enquiry in the matter and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was directed to make a personal enquiry and give a report. A thorough enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department on examining a large number of persons and statements in writing signed by the persons questioned were taken. Thereafter, a First Information Report was lodged in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption alleging offences under Ss. 161 and 165, IPC and S. 5(1)(a) and (d) of the Act. On completing investigation, sanction to prosecute the Chief Engineer was obtained and charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Special Judge. The Chief Engineer who was made accused in the crime moved an application before the Special Judge for discharge under Section 251-A, Cr. P.C. on th