M.B. SHARMA, J.— This is a State Revision Petition against an order dated 14.3.1989 of the learned Special Judge for ACD Cases, Jaipur, discharging the accused non-petitioner of the charge u/s. 161 I.P.C read with S. 5(l)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The only ground on which the accused non-petitioner was discharged is that the charge-sheet could not be filed by the Addl. S.P. Outpost Jaipur Gramin who was not the incharge of the police station.

2. A well was dug by one Nathulal resident of Jirota Kalan Tehsil Dausa Distt Jaipur for irrigating his agricultural fields. He had applied for electric connection to the Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B., Dausa and demand notice dated 23 1 1987 for Rs. 700/- was received. As Nathulal was an old man. and having three sons including Babulal Bairwa, Babulal went to the office of the Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B., Dausa and as alleged that the accused non-petitioner gave out that the Asstt. Engineer will not release the connection unless something is paid as KHARCHA PANI. Babulal returned back to his house and talked to his father He again went to the office of the Assistant Engineer, and Jaswant Singh again made a demand of Rs. 1,000/-. Ultimately, the accused non-petitioner is said to have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 800/-. Babulal was asked by the accused non-petitioner to come along with money on 2.2.1987. He never wanted to pay illegal gratification, therefore, he went to the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaipur. A trap was laid and it is alleged that the accused non-petitioner was caught red handed with the money of Rs. 800/-After receiving the sanction for prosecution of the accused non-petitioner a - charge-sheet was filed.

3. Before the learned Special Judge, an application was filed on behalf of the accused non-petitioner Jaswant Singh on 15.11.1988 that the proceedings against him should be dropped. In the application the reason for dropping the proceedings as stated was that the charge-sheet had not been filed by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station and has only been filed by his subordinate investigating Officer, the Addl. S.P. ACD Cases, Jaipur. As stated earlier the learned Addl S.P., ACD. Cases, Jaipur discharged the accused non-petitioner while accepting the objection raised on behalf of the accused non-petitioner.

4. The question is as to whether the Addl. S.P. A.C.D. Cases, (Rural) Jaipur is Officer incharge of the police station or not?.

5. Sec. 4 of the Cr.P.C. 1898 (old Code) is the same as s. 2 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (new Code). Clause (s) of Sec. 4 of the old Code as* well as Clause (o) of Sec. 2. of the new Code define "officer in charge of a police station and it includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer, and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present.

6. The State Government under notification No. F. 14/1/4/HA/57 dated 15.7.1957 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary of part-4 (Ga) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of S. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and all other powers enabling in this behalf was pleased to declare the office of the Special Inspector General of Police, Anti, Corruption, Rajasthan at Jaipur to be a police Station, which will be known as the Anti Corruption Police Station and whose territorial jurisdiction shall extend over the whole of the area of the State of Rajasthan and also directed that the aforesaid police station shall deal with all cognizable offences relating to bribery and corruption including criminal breach of trust, criminal mis-appropriation and criminal misconduct, in which a public servant is also involved. It is common knowledge that necessity for the aforesaid notification arose because Anti Corruption Departm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document