Illegality in procedure can vitiate the trail.

This is a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings pending in Special Case No. 3 of 1980 against the petitioner, on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Cuddalore.

2. The petition arises under the following circumstances: Mr. Jothilingam is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Olakkur Police Station, South Arcot District. On 7th September, 1980, when he was in the police station attending to his work, at about 10 a.m., the petitioner herein came to the police station and gave a petition against one Paramasivan, a relation of his, as he had cut some palmyrah trees from his land at Annambakkam. Along with the petition, the petitioner also gave Rs. 50 in denomination of five ten rupee notes as bribe amount to the Sub-Inspector of Police to do favour for him. The said notes were seized under a mahazar, attested by two witnesses, by the Sub-Inspector. A case was registered in Crime "No. 258 of 1980 under section 171(E), Indian Penal Code, in the Olakkur Police Station. The petitioner was arrested, searched and kept up in the lock-up. Later, he was produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, for remand. After the Sub-Inspector completed the investigation by recording statements from the witnesses, a charge-sheet was filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.

3. As the offence involved is one under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code, section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is applicable. The case was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, who made the re-investigation, as he is empowered to investigate under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After completion of the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed an amended charge-sheet against the petitioner for an offence under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Cuddalore. The present petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the said proceedings pending on the amended charge-sheet.

4. According to the petitioner, the money which he was having with him on 7th September, 1980, when he went to the Sub-Inspector of Police to give a petition, was forcibly seized from him and there was no offer of bribe to the Sub-Inspector. The Sub-Inspector wanted the petitioner to give Rs. 500 and he was enraged when the petitioner said that he had only Rs. 50 and showed it to him. The petitioner told the Sub-Inspector that he did not expect to be called upon to pay any bribe and that he ,had not come prepared. This infuriated the Sub-Inspector and he snatched the said money from the hands of the petitioner and fabricated a case so as to make it appear that a bribe was offered by the petitioner to him. The Sub-Inspector, taking advantage of his position, arrested the petitioner, prepared a mahazar and investigated the case.

5. The version as put forward by the petitioner as to what transpired on 7th September, 1980, in the police station does not stand a moment’s scrutiny. If the proceedings were to be quashed on this version alone, I would not have hesitated to dismiss this petition. But however, there are other factors for consideration arising in this petition. The Sub-Inspector of Police is not authorised under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to investigate an offence punishable under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code, without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefore without a warrant. In this case, realising that the investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector is not in accordance with law, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, reinvestigated the case and filed an amended charge-sheet, against the petitioner, as he is a competent officer within the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that even