Back
2001 (2) JLJ 374
Deepak Verma and N.K. Jain, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 3355 of 2000; Decided on 7.3.2001.
While this Central Act of 1946 does provide for an agency for investigation of such offences committed by the Central Government employees, there is however, no provision in the Act to exclude jurisdiction of Police Officers of various States to investigate the said offences when committed by such employees in their States. [Para 13
It will be thus seen that the Central Act of 1946 does not deprive the State Police, be it a regular Police force or the SPE, of its jurisdiction to investigate the offences of bribery and corruption against the Central Government employees posted in the State of Madhya Pradesh. AIR 1973 SC 913 and (2000) 5 SCC 88 followed. [Para 15 .
(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 17 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 2(s) -- Notification No. F/15-2 (iii) - 89- XLIX-10 dated 28.11.1989 issued under first proviso to S. 17 of the Act -- inspector of Special Police Establishment is authorised to investigate offences under the Act -- here is no distinction between employees of Union or State in matter of investigation.
Except in clause (a) which refers to the Inspectors of Delhi Special Police Establishment, the entire investigation machinery referred to u/s 17 is the State Police and the only rider placed is that the investigating officer has to be of the rank of Dy. SP/ACP or at least Inspector authorised in this behalf by the State Government by general or special order. There is absolutely no provision in the Act making any distinction between the employees of the Union or the State in the matter or investigation. [Paras 9 & 10
(3) Criminal P.C, 1973 -- Ss. 2(s), 17 and 156-- MP. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 -- S. 3 -- notification No. F/15-2 (ii)-89-XLIX-10 dated 28.11.1989 -- Office of Director, MPSPE -- is a Police Station for purposes of certain offences -- MPSPE is a wing of State Police -- officers of SPE have same powers of investigation as Station House Officers under CrPC. [Paras 1 0 & .11
(4) Lokayukta Evam Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1981 (M.P.) -- S. 4 -vesting of superintendence over M.P. Special Police Establishment -- implies only administrative control -- does not divest SPE of power to investigate offences affecting public administration by State or Central Government employee. MCrC No. 1497/93 relied on. 1995 JLJ 225 confirmed. [Para 12
¼1½ fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 3&fnYyh fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946&Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947 rFkk 1988 ds v/khu vijk/k&1946 ds dasnzh; vf/kfu;e esa dsanzh; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk dkfjr ,sls vijk/kksa dk vius jkT;ksa esa vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fofHkUu jkT;ksa ds iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vf/kdkfjrk vioftZr ugha&e-ç- fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dks vUos"k.k dh ‘kfDr gSA ;|fi 1946 ds dsanzh; vf/kfu;e esa dasnzh; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk dkfjr ,sls vijk/kksa ds vUos"k.k ds vfHkdj.k dk mica/k fd;k x;k gS( rFkkfi ,sls deZpkfj;ksa }kjk tc fofHkUu jkT;ksa esa mDr vijk/k dkfjr gksrs gSa] fofHkUu jkT;ksa ds iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dh mudk vUos"k.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk vioftZr djus ds fy, vf/kfu;e esa dksbZ mica/k ugha gSA ¿iSjk 13 bl çdkj ;g Li"V gksxk fd 1946 ds dsanzh; vf/kfu;e }kjk e/; çns‘k jkT; esa inLFk dsanzh; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fo#) fj‘or vkSj Hkz"Vkpkj ds vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ls jkT; iqfyl oafpr ugha dh xbZ gS] pkgs og fu;fer iqfyl cy gks vFkok fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiukA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 913 rFkk ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 88 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 15 ¼2½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 17&naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 2¼?k½&vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ds çFke ijarqd ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk Ø-,Q@15&2 ¼iii½&89&XLIX&10 fnukad 28-11-1989&fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dk fujh{kd vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, çkf/kÑr gSa&vUos"k.k ds fo"k; esa la?k vFkok jkT; ds deZpkfj;ksa ds chp çHksn ugha gSaA [kaM ¼d½ esa ds flok; ftlesa fnYyh fo‘ks"k iqfyl ds fujh{kdksa dk funsZ‘k gS] /kkjk 17 esa fufnZ"V leLr vUos"k.k ra= jkT; iqfyl gS rFkk ,dek= mifjdk ;g gS fd vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh fMIVh ,l-ih@,-lh-ih- dh Js.kh dk vFkok de&ls&de jkT; ljdkj }kjk lkekU; vFkok fo‘ks"k vkns‘k }kjk bl ckjs esa çkf/kÑr fujh{kd gksuk pkfg,A vUos"k.k ds fo"k; esa vf/kfu;e esa la?k vFkok jkT; ds deZpkfj;ksa chp fdlh çHksn dk loZFkk dksbZ mica/k ugha gSA ¿iSjk 9 ,oa 10 ¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 2¼?k½] 17 rFkk 156&e-ç- fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1947&/kkjk 3&vf/klwpuk Ø-,Q@15&2¼nks½&89&XLIX&10 fnukad 28-11-1989&lapkyd e-ç- fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dk dk;kZy;&dqN vijk/kksa ds ç;kstu ds fy, iqfyl Fkkuk gS&e-ç- fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk] jkT; iqfyl dk ,d Lda/k gSa&fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dks vUos"k.k dh oSlh gh ‘kfDr;k¡ gS tSlh naM çfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu Fkkuk çHkkjh dks gSaA ¿iSjk 10 ,oa 11 ¼4½ yksdk;qDr ,oa mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 4&e-ç- fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dk v/kh{k.k fufgr gksuk&dsoy ç‘kklfud fu;a=.k foof{kr gS&fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk] jkT; vFkok dsanzh; ljdkj ds deZpkjh }kjk yksd ç‘kklu dks çHkkfor djus okys vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus dh ‘kfDr ls oafpr ugha dh xbZA çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 1497@93 voyafcrA 1995 ts ,y ts 225 iq"VA ¿iSjk 12
Jain, J. -- 1. It is aptly said : "A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases" -- Lord Denning.
2. We are also required to iron out some such creases which have surfaced on account of two Single Bench conflicting decisions of this Court in S. G. Pathak v. State of MP. (1995 JLJ 225) and Harmahendra Singh v. State of MP. (Cr. Appeal No. 865/96) decided on 12.5.2000 as to the interpretation of section 3 of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (for short, 'the M.P. Act of 1947'). On reference being made by one of us (Jain, J), these Matters have been placed by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, before us to answer the question extracted below:
"Whether the M.P. Special Police Establishment, constituted under the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, has power to investigate into the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also the Act of 1988, against the employees of the Central Government"?
3. In S.G. Pathak (supra), Hon'ble Prasad, J. sitting at Indore, on consideration of the provisions of the M.P. Act of 1947 with particular reference to the M.P. Lokayukta Evam Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1981 (for . short, The M.P. Act of 1981), held:
"The result of the aforesaid discussion is that vesting of superintendence of the Special Police Establishment in the Lokayukta, will not wipe out the very existence of the Establishment itself. It is not disputed that the Special Police Establishment has been declared as a 'Police Station' and the matter was investigated by a Police officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police. As such, I have no hesitation in holding that the Special Police Establishment has necessary powers to investigate the offence against the petitioner and his employment with the Central Government and vesting of former 's superintendence with Lokayukta did not bar the authority' of Special. Police Establishment to investigate the offences".
4. However, in Harmahendra Singh (supra) Hon'b1e Khare, J., at Jabalpur took a contrary view and held :
"The object of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 as appears from its long title and the Preamble is to make provisions for the constitution of Special Police Force for the investigation of certain offences affecting public administration, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and jurisdiction of the members of the said force in regard to investigation of the said offences, therefore, the area of operation of M.P. Special Police Establishment has been specifically carved out. It is not disputed that it has jurisdiction to investigate the offences committed by a public servant or officers appointed to public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh".
The learned Single Judge concluded:
"It appears that the officers of the M.P. Special Police Establishment at Raipur, exceeded their jurisdictional limit and entrenched upon the field allotted to another specialised investigation agency. Inspector Naidu (PW 5) suffered from jurisdictional incompetence but lay the trap against the accused who was in the employment of the Central Government."
5. It may be stated at the outset that the decision in S. G. Pathak was not brought to the' notice of the Bench at Jabalpur when it decided the appeal in Harmahendra Singh's case. The latter decision could, therefore, be termed as per incuriam, i.e., made in ignorance of the earlier decision of this Court in S.G. Pathak. Be that as it may, we proceed to consider and decide the question referred to us.
6. We have heard Mr. Mahendra Bhatnagar, senior counsel appearing with Mr. Chouhan; Mr. H.S. Uberoi, senior counsel appearing with Mr. P. Prasad for the petitioners; and, Mr. G. Desai, Dy. AG for respondent- State.
7. Mr. Bhatnagar and Mr. Uberoi have advanced more or less similar arguments and it was contended that M.P. Act of 1947 was enacted for the constitu
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
