1. These eight criminal Misc. Petitions No. 5860-M of 1991, 397-M, 2441-M of 1992, 17558-M of 1993, 5772-M, 8262-M of 1994, 14806-M of 1995 and 318-M of 1997, have been filed under S. 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 46 dated 15-3-1991, Police Station Jagraon, FIR No. 45 dated 28-2-1991, Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana, FIR No. 187 dated 21-10-1991 Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, FIR No. 62 dated 9-6-1993, Police Station City Ferozepur, FIR No. 83 dated 15-5-1991 Police Station Nur Mahal Distt. Jalandhar, FIR No. 47 dated 8-4-1991, Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, FIR No. 22 dated 1-4-1992, Police Station Longowal and FIR No. 109 dated 28-7-1991, Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar, respectively registered under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. In all these petitions, same question of law and fact is involved therefore, these shall be disposed of by a common order. Facts are being taken from Crl. M. No. 5860-M of 1991 (Harnek Singh V/s. State of Punjab).

2. The above said FIR was registered on the statement of Baldev Singh son of Maghar Singh resident of Bahewal, Police Station Nihalsinghwala District Faridkot which was recorded by Garib Singh Inspector, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana on 15-3-1991 and investigated by him.

3. The petitioner seeks the quashment of FIR Annexure P1 on the ground that Inspector Garib Singh, was not authorised by the State Government by general or special order as mentioned under proviso (c) to S. 17 of the Act of 1988. Since Inspector Garib Singh, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana was neither authorised under the Act by the State Government nor he had obtained any order from the concerned Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, therefore, the arrest of the petitioner by him was illegal. All proceedings and the investigation being without jurisdiction are illegal as the same are hit by proviso (c) to S. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also the case of the petitioner that his right as well as liberty have been affected by an act of unauthorised person and has caused a great prejudice to him. That apart, he will have to face the suspension from service which will certainly effect his career as well as his family. The contention is that the circumstances of the case in which the petitioner is placed have compelled him to invoke the provisions of S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once it is found that the Inspector, Vigilance Bureau was not authorised under the law to lay trap and take up the investigation including the steps taken in the investigation and other proceedings as also the FIR deserve to be quashed.

4. In response to notice of motion, respondents have filed the reply in the form of affidavit of Inspector Garib Singh, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. He has taken up the plea that he being Inspector of Police in the Vigilance Department was authorised to investigate this case as provided by 1st proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Punjab Government under S. 30(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 issued the notifications Annexures R1 and R2 authorising all the Inspectors of Police, Vigilance Department, to investigate the case under the Act in whole of the Punjab State. It is clear that these notifications are still in force and empower every Inspector of the police of the Vigilance Department to investigate every case under the Prevention of Corruption Act in whole of the Punjab State. It is further pleaded that the case was rightly registered on the statement of Baldev Singh as accused Harnek Singh while holding the office as a public servant demanded Rs. 5000/- from Baldev Singh as illegal gratification by abusing his position as a public servant. In view of the notifications Annexure R1 and R2, he was legally authorised to investigate the case and to make arrest without prior permission