Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. P. GUPTA
MAHAVIR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
CRI. REF. 168 Of 1999
Decided On : 08/19/1999
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 17 - AUTHORIZATION TO INVESTIGATE - REQUIREMENT OF AUTHORIZATION BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant, was charged under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges, arguing that the investigation was not authorized by a Superintendent of Police as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the authorization by the Superintendent of Police was valid and that the investigation was not without authorization as required under the second proviso to Section 17. The court also held that the trial court had considered all the materials for prima facie purposes and that there was ground to proceed against the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorization by the Superintendent of Police was valid? 2. Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires authorization by a Superintendent of Police to investigate an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. 2. The authorization by the Superintendent of Police need not be a reasoned order and the officer is not required to record the reason for his satisfaction that it is necessary to investigate. 3. At the charge stage, the trial court is to go by the material on record to see if there is ground to proceed against the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the framing of charges against the accused.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case No. 22/97 before the Special Judge, Jabalpur. The Special Judge vide impugned order dated 15-12-1998 directed framing of charge under those provisions and have actually framed charges under those provisions alleging that the petitioner in his public capacity as Superintending Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board possessed assets amounting to Rs. 4,02,037. 10 disproportionate to his known source of income during the period March 1965 to December, 1993.
( 2 ) THE petitioner approaches this Court in revisional jurisdiction with two-fold assertion; (i) that section 17 proviso 2 requires pre- authorization by Superintendent of Police to investigate into offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Act. It is urged in this case although there purports to be such an authorization dated 19-1-1993 by S. P. , Special Police Establishment Office, it is only a mechanical authorization by filling in blanks the names of this accused and the rest is the mere typed order or it may have been even cyclostyled and there was no application of mind. For this one pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal cited at AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) and a judgment of single Bench of this Court of Gwalior Bench in Cr. R. 1983/96 titled Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. State of M. P. decided on 6-1-1977 are relied upon, (ii) the second leg of the argument is regarding merits that there is no prima facie inference that the accused was possessed of assets disproportionate to his known source of income as the assets in the names of the family members have also been included which should not have been included without reason.
( 3 ) AS regard the first objection : Section 17 of the P. C. Act is in following terms :"17. Persons authorised to investigate.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,- (A) in the case of Delhi Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police; (B) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of Sec. 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police; (C) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act, without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor, without a warrant :provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant :provided further that an offence referred to in Cl. (e) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. "
( 4 ) THE judgment in the case of Bhajanlal (1992 Cri LJ 527) (SC) turned on the point whether an order given by the Magistrate under proviso one, in favour of an officer who was not ordinarily empowered to investigate under the main section, without giving reason, and, as it appeared, without application of mind and mechanically, could be said to be proper authorization in favour of the lower rank officer i. e. a sub-inspector. The Supreme Court said the policy in the section provides that the officer of a particular higher rank should investigate ordinarily. The Magistrate could authorise investigation by lower rank officer, but, it should be implicitly understood that such authorization by the Magistrate should be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
