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

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Thokchom Kaminimohan Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Superintendent Of Police, Kakching District, Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
Misc. Case (Cril. Petition) No. 28 of 2022, Ref: Cril. Petition No. 30 of 2022 and Misc. Case (Cril. Petition) No. 31 of 2022, Ref: Cril. Petition No. 30 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. H.Ishwarlal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, Advocate., for the Applicants in MC(Cril.Petn.) No.28/2022; Mr. N.Ibotombi Singh, Sr.Advocate, with Ms. N. Savitri, Advocate., for the Applicant in MC(Cril.Petn.) No.31/2022; Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, Advocate., for the Main Respondent in the cases

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Lokayukta in directing investigations and the role of the Superintendent of Police in conducting the investigation on behalf of the Lokayukta.

Headnote:

Public Prosecutor - Criminal Petition - Cr.P.C. 439(2), IPC 120-B/34, PC Act 7(b)/13 - The court discussed the relevance of Cr.P.C. 24 and 302, as well as the provisions of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, in the context of the case. It highlighted the powers of the Lokayukta in directing investigations and the role of the Superintendent of Police in conducting the investigation on behalf of the Lokayukta.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents in a criminal petition filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kakching District, Manipur. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the criminal petition based on the competence of the conducting counsel.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Superintendent of Police was acting on behalf of the Manipur Lokayukta and was well within his rights to engage the conducting counsel for the Lokayukta. The miscellaneous cases were dismissed, and the Criminal Petition was listed for further hearing.

Issues: The issues revolved around the competence of the conducting counsel and the maintainability of the criminal petition filed by the Superintendent of Police.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the powers of the Lokayukta in directing investigations and the role of the Superintendent of Police in conducting the investigation on behalf of the Lokayukta. It clarified that the provisions of Cr.P.C. 24 and 302 did not apply at the stage of investigation.

Final Decision: The miscellaneous cases were dismissed, and the Criminal Petition was listed for further hearing on 13.10.2022.

JUDGMENT

1. Criminal Petition No.30 of 2022 was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kakching District, Manipur, under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East (Special Judge, Lokayukta, Manipur), to the respondents in the criminal petition, vide order dated 08.06.2022 passed in Cril. Misc. (AB) Case No.5 of 22 (Ref: - FIR No.4(2) 2022 CB-PS under Section 120-B/34 IPC & Sections 7(b)/13 PC Act).

2. While so, respondents No.2 and 3 in Criminal Petition No. 30 of 2022 filed M.C. (Cril.Petn.) No.28 of 2022 and respondent No.1 therein filed M.C.(Cril.Petn.) No.31 of 2022 seeking dismissal of the criminal petition alleging that it was not maintainable as Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, the conducting counsel, was not a Public Prosecutor and was not competent to file and argue the criminal petition before this Court in the light of Sections 24 and 302 Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Mr. H.Ishwarlal, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel, for the applicants in M.C.(Cril.Petn.) No.28 of 2022; Mr. N.Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. N.Savitri, learned counsel, for the applicant in M.C.(Cril.Petn.) No.31 of 2022; and Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, learned counsel, appearing for the contesting respondent in the miscellaneous cases, viz., the Superintendent of Police, Kakching District.

4. Nutshelled, the relevant facts unfold thus:

    The Hon'ble Manipur Lokayukta passed order dated 07.02.2022 in Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, titled 'Shri Thiyam Nirosh Singh vs. Shri N. Sarat Singh, the then Chief Engineer (Power), now re-engaged as Managing Director, Manipur State Power Company Limited and others', holding that a prima facie case existed for investigation of the allegations made against the respondents therein. In exercise of power under Sections 20(3), 28 and 32 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2014'), the Hon'ble Manipur Lokayukta directed utilization of the services of Shri Shrey Vats, Superintendent of Police, Kakching District, to investigate the case, exercising all the powers conferred under the Act of 2014, by considering the preliminary inquiry report as an Ejahar for the purpose of registration of a case at the Crime Branch Police Station, Imphal. It was further directed that Shri Shrey Vats, the Investigating Officer, would not be under the supervision of his departmental senior officer or the Station where the case was registered and would conduct the investigation in coordination with the Director (Inquiry), Manipur Lokayukta. The investigation was directed to be completed within six months from the date of registration of the case and the matter was adjourned to await the investigation report.

    5. Pursuant to the aforestated order, FIR No.4(02) 2022 was registered on the file of the Crime Branch Police Station, Imphal, under Sections 7(b) and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 120-B and 34 IPC. At that stage, Cril. Miscellaneous (AB) Case No.5 of 2022 was filed by Shri N.Sarat Singh {the applicant in M.C.(Cril.Petn.) No.31 of 2022}, Shri Th.Kaminimohan Singh and Shri M.Budhachandra Sharma {the applicants in M.C. (Cril.Petn.) No.28 of 2022} before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East (Special Judge, Lokayukta, Manipur) (for brevity, 'the Special Court'), under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory/pre-arrest bail in relation to the subject FIR. By order dated 09.02.2022 (signed on 14.02.2022), the Special Court granted interim anticipatory bail to them, subject to conditions. Thereafter, by order dated 08.06.2022, the Special Court made absolute the interim bail, granted under the earlier order dated 09.02.2022, till submission of the charge-sheet.

    6. Seeking cancellation of the bail order dated 08.06.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Kakching District, filed Criminal Petition No.30 of 2022 before this Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. Notice having been ordered, the respo

    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 Back to top