O R D E R

The petitioner is the third accused in the case registered as V.C.No.01/2015/Wayanad by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Wayanad Unit under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

2. The first accused in the case was the Secretary of the Public Works Department and the second accused was the General Manager of the Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited (KSCCL). The case relates to the corrupt practices alleged to have been conducted by the accused in relation to installation of crash guard barriers on CVG Road in Wayanad District. The petitioner was the person to whom the work was entrusted by the KSCCL on a sub contract.

3. After conducting the investigation, the investigating officer filed Annexure-A17 final report in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery praying that the case may be closed as mistake of fact.

4. The Special Court, as per Annexure-A18 order dated

30.06.2020, did not accept the final report but returned it to the investigating officer for taking necessary further action in accordance with law.

5. In paragraph 15 of Annexure-A18 order, the Special Court has stated as follows:

“There are enough materials in the case diary to submit final report against the accused persons. The investigating officer ought to have charge sheeted the accused persons after obtaining sanction required under the law.”

6. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing Annexure-A18 order.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observations made by the Special Court in paragraph 15 of Annexure-A18 order virtually amount to a direction issued to the investigating officer to file charge-sheet against the accused in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Special Court has no power to direct the investigating officer to file a charge-sheet against the accused in the case.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the VACB is conducting further investigation in the case in compliance with Annexure-A18 order passed by the Special Court.

10. 'Investigation' is defined in Section 2(h) of the Code to include all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in that behalf.

11. Section 156(1) of the Code empowers any officer in charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

12. Investigation consists generally of the following steps:

(1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and (5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code. The final step in the investigation, namely, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station (See H. N. Rishbud v. State : AIR 1955 SC 196).

13. Section 156(3) of the Code states that, any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code ma