The main legal point established is the duty of the court to examine complaints before directing investigation and the need for strict enforcement of relevant legal provisions.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed against the order dt. 19-3-2001 passed by A. C. Shukla, Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

( 2 ) A complaint under S. 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Court of Special Judge alleging an offence under S. 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as an Act ). On filing of complaint Special Judge without going through the contents of the complaint has directed that the complaint be investigated by Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt Gwalior and directed that enquiry report be produced on 18-4-2001.

( 3 ) RECORD of trial Court is requisitioned. In the complaint it is alleged that complainant No. 1 is an Advocate and is a member of Executive Committee of High Court Bar Association and Complainant No. 2 is an Advocate. In para 3 of the complaint it is mentioned that accused Nos. 1 to 3 (petitioners) without any authority have issued orders directing that wearing of Head Gear is compulsory while riding on a motor cycle. In the complaint it is mentioned that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, who are the public servants, have issued directions without any sanction of law with an intention to receive commission in lakhs of rupees. It is further alleged that on account of the orders passed by the petitioners police has unlawfully challaned the motor cycle riders and imposed fine. It is further alleged in the complaint that the order directing wearing of Head Gear is not provided under law and the order being contrary to law has been withdrawn. The petitioners are public servants and they have committed corrupt practices while directing compulsory wearing of the Head Gear.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for petitioners submitted that without going through the complaint and without applying its mind trial Court has mechanically issued directions for investigation. As and when complaint is filed, it is the duty of the Magistrate to look into the complaint and examine whether any prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance or for calling report of the investigating agency. In the present case, he ought to have seen whether the direction to wear Head Gear is according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for petitioners invited attention to the provisions of S. 129 of Motor Vehicles Act. Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced below :- 129. Wearing of protective headgear.- Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear (protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards) : provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if he is, while driving or riding on the motor cycle, in a public place, wearing a turban : provided further that the State Government may, by such rules, provide for such exceptions as it may think fit.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 was holding the post of District Magistrate and Collector of the District Gwalior and petitioner No. 2 was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. They are the public servants. The orders were issued for enforcing the law in performing their duties. As such no investigation was necessary. Even otherwise before entertaining the complaint it was the duty of the trial Court to examine whether prior sanction to prosecute the petitioners is obtained, counsel for petitioners then invited attention to Rule 213, of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Rule 213 is reproduced below :- 213. Head Gear.- (1) The head gear to be worn by any person while driving or riding on a motor cycle shall be of the I. S. I. specification No. 181-4151-19776 as amended from time to time. (2) The provision of S. 129 of the Act, shall not apply to a woman or a child who is not more than 12 years of age.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for petitioners submitted that the rules have been framed and exemption is granted