Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH
DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J.
Rishabh Sethi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5767 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2018
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION - PROCLAMATION OF ACCUSED AS OFFENDER - SECTION 82 CR.P.C. - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 17 - INVESTIGATION BY POLICE INSPECTOR - VALIDITY - PUBLICATION OF PROCLAMATION - MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS - COMPLIANCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 82 CR.P.C. - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROCLAIMED PERSON AND PROCLAIMED OFFENDER - SECTION 174A IPC - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - QUASHING OF PROCLAMATION AND FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a corruption case, challenged the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender and the FIR registered against him for the offense under Section 174A IPC. The petitioner argued that the investigation was conducted by a police inspector who was not authorized under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that the proclamation was not published as per the mandatory requirements of Section 82(2) (i) (c) Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the investigation conducted by the police inspector was valid as the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and not arrested without a warrant. However, the court found that the mandatory requirements of Section 82(2) (i) (c) Cr.P.C. were not complied with as the copy of the proclamation was not affixed to a conspicuous part of the court house. The court also held that the petitioner could not be termed as a proclaimed offender as the offenses alleged against him were not enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Issues: 1. Whether the investigation conducted by a police inspector was valid under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether the proclamation was published as per the mandatory requirements of Section 82(2) (i) (c) Cr.P.C.? 3. Whether the petitioner could be termed as a proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C.? 4. Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner for the offense under Section 174A IPC was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the investigation conducted by the police inspector was valid as the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and not arrested without a warrant. The court relied on the Notification dated 10.02.1978 issued by the Home (Gr.V) Department, Government of Rajasthan, which authorized police inspectors posted in ACB to investigate and arrest the accused-persons without warrant. 2. The court held that the mandatory requirements of Section 82(2) (i) (c) Cr.P.C. were not complied with as the copy of the proclamation was not affixed to a conspicuous part of the court house. The court relied on the judgments in Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana, Satinder Singh Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh, Sanjay Sarin Vs. State (Union Territory, Chandigarh), Indra Mani Pandey Vs. State of U.P., Rohit Kumar @ Raju Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Ors., Chokha alias Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan, State Inspector of Police Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, and H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. State of Delhi. 3. The court held that the petitioner could not be termed as a proclaimed offender as the offenses alleged against him were not enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The court relied on the judgments in Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana and Satinder Singh Vs. The State of U.T., Chandigarh. 4. The court held that the FIR registered against the petitioner for the offense under Section 174A IPC was not valid as the very basis of the FIR, i.e., the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not published as per the legal requirements.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, the FIR registered against him for the offense under Section 174A IPC, and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State.
2. This criminal misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner with the prayer to quash and set-aside the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Sessions Court), Anti Corruption Act No.1, Jaipur, whereby accused-petitioner Rishabh Sethi was declared as proclaimed offender and the standing warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him in connection with FIR No. 217/2016, registered at PS Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d), 13(2) & 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC.
3. Further prayer was made to quash all the Proclamation proceedings including the order dated 31.01.2017, Standing Order of arrest, order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and to quash and set-aside FIR No. 159/2017, registered at PS Bani Park, Jaipur for the offence under Section 174A IPC.
4. Briefly stated, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that as per provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act') no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or its equivalent rank should have investigated the offence punishable under this Act, whereas Circle Inspector Mr. Bharat Singh has conducted the investigation in the matter. On the basis of the statement recorded by said Bharat Singh, proclamation proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioner, which is impermissible under the law. His further contention is that the petitioner should not have been declared as proclaimed offender by the learned court below as none of the offences alleged against him in FIR No. 217/2016 have been mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. It has also been contended that proclamation against the petitioner has not been published as per the mandatory requirements of Section 82(2) (i) (c) Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments to support his arguments :-
(I) Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana, 2011 SCCOnLineP&H 16868.
(II) Satinder Singh Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh, 2010 SCCOnLineP&H 6551.
(III) Sanjay Sarin Vs. State (Union Territory, Chandigarh), 2012 SCCOnLineP&H 22817.
(IV) Indra Mani Pandey Vs. State of U.P., 2012 SCCOnLineAll 2857.
(V) Rohit Kumar @ Raju Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Ors., (2007) 98 DRJ 714.
(VI) Chokha alias Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 SCCOnLineRaj 345.
(VII) State Inspector of Police Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, (2006) 7 SCC 172.
(VIII) H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. State of Delhi, (1955) 1 SCR 1150.
(IX) H.S. Gotla Vs. State, (2001) ILR(Kar) 2843.
(X) Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. Vs. CBI, (2009) 7 SCC 526.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the accused was involved in institutional systematic corruption activities. After conducting search and raid by Anti Corruption Bureau team, the accused-petitioner has left the country and has not returned back as per the reports received from Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Look out circular has also been issued against him, duration of which has been extended upto 13.11.2018. Learned State counsel submits that the proceedings initiated against the accused-petitioner declaring him proclaimed offender and lodging the FIR against him for the offence under Section 174A IPC cannot be quashed and set-aside unless the accused records his presence before the court concerned. He has further stated that as per Notification dated 10.02.1978 issued by Home (Gr.V) Department, Government of Rajasthan, the State Government has authorised all the police inspectors posted in ACB to investigate and arrest the accused-persons without warrant. Hence, the contention raised by counsel for the accused-petitioner
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
