Legality of prosecution under the provisions of P.C. Act, 1947.

These cases arise out of a charge-sheet laid before the Special Judge, Madras division, by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Madras on 5th October, 1964 against P. Sirajuddin, Retired Chief Engineer Highways and Rural Works, Madras, under section 165, Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1)(b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (II of 1947) and taken on file as Calendar Case No. 10 of 1964 by the Special Judge. The petitioner is charged, to be brief, with having habitually obtained for himself and members of his family valuable things from his subordinate officers without consideration or for inadequate consideration or securing pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant. Nineteen instances are enumerated in the charge-sheet between the period 3rd January, 1961, and 14th March, 1964. He is alleged, for instance, to have directed another officer working under him to get a suit length of imported variety of cloth and for its cost of Rs. 390 paid Rs. 200 only and asked the Subordinate Officer to make good the balance by adjustment in the departmental nominal muster rolls. Similarly he had a new Rolex Oyster date wrist watch from his subordinate without paying for it, the cost to be taken by manipulation of the nominal muster rolls. He got amenities like white-washing and F.O.L. done to his house by his subordinates. For our present purpose it is needless to detail the charges.

Before the matter was taken up by the Special Judge for consideration, an application, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 86 of 1964, was filed by the petitioner praying that he may be discharged under section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code. On this application, the learned Special Judge, while holding that there was no basis or material for charging the petitioner under section 165, Indian Penal Code or under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption-Act held that a charge could be framed against the accused under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against the said order dated 16th January, 1965, the Public Prosecutor has preferred Criminal Revisional Case No. 294 of 1965, under sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code The petitioner has preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 934 of 1065 under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings and discharge the petitioner, as the charge against him was groundless. Writ Petition No. 391 of 1965, is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order inCriminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 86 of 1964, directing the framing of the charge under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1)(d) of Act II of 1947. Writ Petition No. 390 of 1965, relating to the same proceedings is for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction or order directing the Director of Vigilance and AntiCorruption, to forbear from prosecuting Calender Case No. 10 of 1964. The writ petitions are sought to be maintained as providing the only effective remedy in the circumstances alleged. It is submitted that this is one of those cases where there has been such a violent departure from the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of investigation and cognizance of offences as to amount to denial of justice and call for interference by the issue of prerogative writs. In the several affidavits filed averments are made that the investigation and prosecution are wholly mala fide and groundless and have been set afoot by the Officer immediately next in-rank to the petitioner, Sivasankara Mudaliar, Superintending Engineer, Madras. It is alleged that the petitioner was to retire on the 14th of March, 1964 and in the normal course he would have been retained till he completed the age of 58 years, that the circumstances ana sequence o