IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
V. RAJEENDRANATH NATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 3223 OF 2020
Decided on : 06-08-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 2(h), 156(1) and 173(2) – Quash of order - Anti-Corruption Bureau – Misconduct - First accused in case was the Secretary of the Public Works Department and second accused was General Manager of Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited (KSCCL). Case relates to corrupt practices alleged to have been conducted by accused in relation to installation of crash guard barriers on CVG Road in Wayanad District. Petitioner was person to whom work was entrusted by KSCCL on a sub contract.
Finding of the court: The term "investigation" under Section 173(2) of Code includes opinion of officer in charge of police station as to whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of case to concerned court or not - observations made by the Special Court in paragraph 15 of Annexure-A18 order, which have been quoted in paragraph 5 of this order, cannot have any legal basis and those observations, which virtually amount to issuing direction to the investigating officer to file charge-sheet against the accused, are liable to be set aside. Investigating officer shall conduct further investigation uninfluenced by those observations and he shall file final report in Special Court in accordance with opinion formed by him on basis of te materials collected during investigation - Observations made by the Special Court in order, which have been quoted in paragraph 5 of this order, are set aside. Investigating officer shall conduct further investigation in the case uninfluenced by those observations
Result: Petition is allowed in part
ORDER :
The petitioner is the third accused in the case registered as V.C.No.01/2015/Wayanad by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Wayanad Unit under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').
2. The first accused in the case was the Secretary of the Public Works Department and the second accused was the General Manager of the Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited (KSCCL). The case relates to the corrupt practices alleged to have been conducted by the accused in relation to installation of crash guard barriers on CVG Road in Wayanad District. The petitioner was the person to whom the work was entrusted by the KSCCL on a sub contract.
3. After conducting the investigation, the investigating officer filed Annexure-A17 final report in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery praying that the case may be closed as mistake of fact.
4. The Special Court, as per Annexure-A18 order dated 30.06.2020, did not accept the final report but returned it to the investigating officer for taking necessary further action in accordance with law.
5. In paragraph 15 of Annexure-A18 order, the Special Court has stated as follows:
6. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing Annexure-A18 order.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observations made by the Special Court in paragraph 15 of Annexure-A18 order virtually amount to a direction issued to the investigating officer to file charge-sheet against the accused in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Special Court has no power to direct the investigating officer to file a charge-sheet against the accused in the case.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the VACB is conducting further investigation in the case in compliance with Annexure-A18 order passed by the Special Court.
10. 'Investigation' is defined in Section 2(h) of the Code to include all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in that behalf.
11. Section 156(1) of the Code empowers any officer in charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
12. Investigation consists generally of the following steps:
(b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and (5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code. The final step in the investigation, namely, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station (See H. N. Rishbud v. State : AIR 1955 SC 196).
13. Section 156(3) of the Code states that, any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code may
Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra : AIR 1968 SC 117
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police : AIR 1985 SC 1285
H. N. Rishbud v. State : AIR 1955 SC 196
M.C.Abraham v. State of Maharashtra : (2003) 2 SCC 649
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India : AIR 2007 SC 1087
R.N.Chatterji v. Havildar Kuer Singh : (1970) 1 SCC 496
Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand : (2009) 11 SCC 299
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P : AIR 2008 SC 907
State of Bihar v. J. A. C. Saldanha : AIR 1980 SC 326
Vasanti Dubey v. State of M.P : (2012) 2 SCC 731
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat : AIR 2019 SC 5233
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.