The accused persons have no locus standi to challenge the orders directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the court takes cognizance of the offences.

JUDGMENT :

S. Pujahari, J. - I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Pani, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C ") has been filed to quash the orders dated 17.04 1998, 19.06.1998 and 07.02.2002 of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur passed in I.C.C. Case No. 1 of 1998.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the opposite party No. 1 filed I.C.C. Case to. 1 of 1998 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of ' Corruption Act before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur against the present petitioners and four others alleging against them regarding demand of bribe. The earned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur vide order dated 17.04.1998 in exercising power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directed the O.I.C., Vigilance Police Station, Berhampur to investigate into the allegations. On 29.04.1998, some of the accused persons appeared through advocate and filed a petition to recall the order dated 17.04.1998 and the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur vide order dated 19.06 1998 rejected that petition. On 03.10.2001 the accused persons filed another petition to recall the order dated 1.7.04.1998 and the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur vide order dated 07.02.2002 held that there was no convincing ground to take a different view than one taken by that Court as per order dated 19.06.1998. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, inter-alia, held that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the prosecution case. The said order dated 07.02.2002 is under challenge in this Criminal misc. case.

4. During course of hearing of this criminal misc. case, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. without valid sanction of the competent authority for prosecution of the accused persons is not sustainable in law. After receipt of the complaint petition, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur should have examined the complainant and proceeded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. which was the only course opened to the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur under Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pani the learned standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department supported the impugned orders and further contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the order as till now the Court has not taken cognizance of the matter.

6. The impugned order dated 19.06.1998 shows that the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur while rejecting the contention of the accused persons had placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antualay, AIR 1984 SC 684. In the said order, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur held that since no cognizance had been taken of the offences alleged and the Court had not decided for issuance of any process against any or all the accused persons, the accused-petitioners had no locust standi to appear in the Court and challenge the said order. So, in such facts, situation, it cannot be said that the Court had taken cognizance of the offences. When cognizance was not taken and when no process was issued to the accused persons, have they any locus standi to challenge the impugned order ? In the order dated 19.06.1998, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur also held that unless and until cognizance is taken and the Court decides to issue process, they cannot be legally turned an accused persons.

7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to a three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others v. V. Narayana Reddy and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 1672 wherein it has been held as follows :

"14. xxx

Broadly speaking, when on