SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(MP) 54

1995 JLJ 225
C.K. Prasad, J.
S.G. Pathak v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 50 of 1995; Decided on 11.1.1995.

Advocates:
P.K. Saxena for petitioner; Girish Desai, Deputy Government Advocate for State.

Headnote:(1) Lokayukt Evam Up-lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (M.P.) -- Ss. 7, 2 (a) and 2 (g) -- employee of Central Government -- neither an "officer" nor a "public servant" as defined in S. 2 (a) and 2 (g) respectively -- Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt cannot make any enquiry against such employee under S. 7. [Para 8

       (2) Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (M.P.) -- Ss. 2, 3 and 4 (1) -Special Police Establishment constituted under S. 2 -- has power to investigate offences under Prevention of Corruption Act as notified under S. 3 -- superintendence of Lokayukt over such establishment -- does not wipe out very existence of Establishment itself. Misc. Cr. Case No. 1497/93 relied on. [Paras 10 & 11

       (3) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 7 r/w Ss. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) -- offence under committed by employee of Central Government -- may be investigated by the Special Police Establishment. [Para 11

       (4) Words and Phrases -- word "superintendence" -- implies administrative control to give directions to the subordinate to discharge its duties. AIR 1980 SC 327 followed. [Para 10

       ¼1½ yksdk;qDr ,ao mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 7] 2 ¼d½ rFkk ¼N½ dsanzh; ljdkj dk deZpkjh && /kkjk 2 ¼d½ rFkk 2 ¼N½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr Øe‘k% u **vf/kdkjh* gS vkSj u **yksd lsod** && yksdk;qDr vFkok mi&yksdkqDr ,sls deZpkjh ds fo#) /kkjk 7 ds v/khu dksbZ tk¡p ugha dj ldrkA ¿ iSjk 8À

       ¼2½ fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 7] 3 rFkk 4¼1½ && /kkjk 2 ds v/khu xfBr fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk && /kkjk 3 ds v/khu ;Fkk vf/klwfpr Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/kksa ds vUos"k.k dh ‘kfDr izkIr gS && ,slh LFkkiuk ij yksdk;qDr ds v/kh{k.k ls && Lo;a LFkkiuk dk vfLrRo dh lekIr ugha gks tkrkA iz-nka- ekeyk Ø- 1497@93 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10 rFkk 11À+

       ¼3½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 7] lgifBr /kkjk 13 ¼1½ ¼?k½ rFkk 13 ¼2½ & ds v/khu vijk/k dsanzh; ljdkj ds deZpkjh }kjk dkfjr && fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk vUos"k.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 11À

       ¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn **v/kh{k.k** && v/khuLFk dk vius drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, funs‘k nsus ds fy, iz‘kklfud fu;a=.k foof{kr gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 327 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 10À

ORDER

C.K. Prasad, J. -- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dt. 28.12.94 passed by the Special Judge, Dhar, in Sp. Case No. 4/93. The petitioner has filed an application before the Special Judge, for dropping up the criminal proceedings and by the aforesaid order the same has been rejected.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present application are that one Deepakbhai Patel, gave an information to the Supdt. of Police of the Special Police Establishment stating therein that he is the Manager of the Appex Electro Statistics. He has further stated in his application that he has filed return in the office of Central Excise and the petitioner, who happens to be a Superintendent of Central Excise, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- for clearance of the monthly forms. Said Patel, in his information, further stated that he did not want to give illegal gratification to the Superintendent and desired that he be apprehended. Accordingly, a trap was led on 31.1.1994 and Rs. 5,000/- alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

3. Shri Saxena, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the conduct of investigation and submissions of the challan by the Special Police Establishment is totally unauthorised. As such the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence on the basis of totally unauthorised investigation.

4. Shri G. Desai, Dy. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Special Police Establishment has been declared as a 'Police Station'. The Dy. Supdt. of Police in the Special Police Establishment is competent to investigate the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. To butress his submission, Shri Saxena has drawn my attention to the preamble of the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Adhiniyam 1981 (Act No. 37 of 1981) wherein it has been stated that the institution of Lokayukt and Uplokayukt have been constituted for making enquiry into the allegations against public servants.

6. Shri Saxena has further drawn my attention to S. 7 which confers powers on Lokayukt/uplokayukt for making enquiry on a complaint or other information. He pointedly drawn my attention to the explanation to S. 7 which reads thus--

"Sec. 7: Matters which may be enquired into by Lokayukt or Uplokayukt -- Subject to the provisions of this Act, on receiving complaint or other information

(i) the Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation made against a public servant in relation to whom the Chief Minister is the competent authority;

(ii) the uplokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation made against any public servant other than that referred to in clause (i):

Provided that the Lokayukt may enquire into an allegation made against any public servant referred to in clause (ii).

Explanation -- For the purpose of this section, the expression 'may proceed to enquire' and 'may enquire' include investigation by police agency put at the disposal of Lokayukt and Uplokayukt in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 13.

7. Shri Saxena has further drawn my attention to S. 4 of M.P. Special Police Establishment Act 1947 (M.P. Act No. XVII of 1947) whereby the Superintendence of the M.P. Special Police Establishment was vested in the Lokayukt and Uplokayukt appointed under S. 3 of the Act No. 37 of 1981.

8. The terms 'Officer' and 'Public Servant' have been defined under S. 2 (a) and 2 (g) of the Act which read as follows: Sec. 2 (a):

'Officer' means a person appointed to a public service of post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Sec. 2 (g):

'Public Servant' means person falling under any o.f the following categories, namely:

(i) Minister,

(ii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and Neta Pratipaksha;

(iii) an officer referred to in clause (a);

(iv) an officer of an apex Cooperative Society or District Cooperative Society within the meaning of cl

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top