Judgment:
ORDER
The Court
1. The petitioner has questioned the Memo dated 11-5-1987 issued by the 1st respondent and also the cognizance taken by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Spl. (SVC) CC No. 5 of 1995 for the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
After the retirement of the petitioner as Deputy Conservator of Forests in respect of disproportionate acquisition of properties to his known source of income was noticed and the Superintendent of Police by his Memo dated 11-5-1987 authorised Sri Y.B. Patil, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Dharwad to investigate into the matter under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Police Inspector, after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet for the said offence before the Sessions Court, Dharwad which came to be registered as Spl. (SVC) CC No. 5 of 1995. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the alleged offences wherein the accused pleaded not guilty. While the proceedings were in progress, the petitioner herein has questioned the authority of the Investigation Officer and also the charges framed. Hence, this petition.
3. The main contention of the learned Counsel Sri B.B. Bajentri, forthe petitioner is that Memo was issued by the Superintendent of Police authorising Sri Y.B. Patil, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, without assigning any reasons to investigate the matter. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana v Ch. Bhajan Lal, the entire proceedings are vitiated and prayed to allow the petition and quash the charge-sheet also. Further, the learned Counsel though urged many other grounds but restricted only insofar as authorising the Inspector to make an investigation on the ground that no sufficient reasons have been assigned to take up investigation. In the light of the submissions, the short point for consideration of this petition arises:
Whether the Superintendent of Police is required to assign reasons for the purpose of authorising the Police Inspector to investigate into the matter and such investigation conducted is vitiated or not
4. The learned Government Pleader to justify the investigation, firstly relied on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v Ram Singh , and contended that the purpose and object of the Act, procedural delays and technicalities of law could, not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved. Secondly relied on the decision in State by Central Bureau of Investigation v S. Bangarappa, and contended that investigation conducted by a Police Inspector attached to CBI in pursuance of the order issued by the Superintendent of CBI is not illegal. It is in this view of the matter submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the records to quash the proceedings that too after lapse of 5 years. In the present case, the charge-sheet is filed for the offence under Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Section 5-A prescribes persons competent to investigate the matter which thus reads:
'5-A, Investigation into cases under this Act.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr. P.C. no Police Officer below the rank.-
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Est. of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the Presidency-towns of Calcutta and Madras, of an ACP;
(c) in the Presidency-town of Bombay of a Superintendent of Police;
(d) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police;
shall investigate any offence punishable under Section 161, 165 or 165-A of the IPC or under Section 5 of this Act, without the order of a Presidency 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 Presidency 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 clause (e) of subsection (1) of Section 5 shall not be investigated without the order of Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police'.
5. The reading of this section, makes clear as to which of the Police Officers is competent to investigate the matter in respect of the criminal misconduct alleged under Section 5(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act but in respect of the criminal misconduct alleged under Section 5(1)(e) unless the Investigation Officer is authorised by the Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police is not entitled to conduct investigation as per second proviso of Section 5-A of the Act of 1947. The contention of the learned Counsel is that if the investigation is not done by a person duly authorised by the Superintendent of Police, the entire investigation is vitiated. In Bajan Lal's case, supra, while considering Section 5-A and 5(1) of the Act and the power of the Investigation Officer at para 134, it is clearly laid down that when the Superintendent of Police while granting permission to a non-designated Police Officer, he should satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient reasons to entrust the investigation with such Police Officer. Therefore, what is required is while authorising the Inspector to conduct investigation, the Superintendent of Police has to apply his mind in authorising such Police Inspector to conduct investigation.
6. In the present case, the Superintendent of Police has issued a Memo dated 11-5-1987 which reads thus:
'MEMO
Sub: Source report against Sri M.V. Waddin, ACF Social Forestry, Dharwad - Regarding.
You are hereby directed to register a case in Lokayuktha P.S., Dharwad against Sri M.V. Waddin, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Social Forests, Dharwad under Section 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and take up investigation and report compliance'.
7. The subject mentioned in the Memo i.e., 'Source report' against Sri M.V. Waddin, ACF, Social Forestry, Dharwad, shows that the Superintendent of Police after applying his mind on the report available, authorised Sri Y.B. Patil, Police Inspector, Lokayuktha to investigate into the matter. Therefore, at this stage, it is not proper to say that the Superintendent of Police has not assigned any reasons for authorising Sri Y.B. Patil, Police Inspector to make investigation. That apart, the Apex Court while considering the similar provisions in S. Bangarappa's case, supra, has observed in para 13 which is extracted hereunder:
'13. When there is such an order, any Inspector of Police attached to the CBI can conduct the investigation. Learned Single Judge unnecessarily quoted extracts from the decision of this Court in Bhajan Lal's case, supra, perhaps being misled in believing that even when the investigation was conducted by CBI the requirement contained in clause (c) of Section 17 of the Act has to be followed. The word 'elsewhere' in that clause is clear indication that the insistence for Deputy Superintendent of Police can have application only if it does not fall under clauses (a) and (b). We do not wish to delve more into this aspect as Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, has fairly conceded that the High Court has gone wrong on that aspect'.
8. In the light of the observations, there is nothing wrong in authorising the subordinate officer to make investigation in pursuance of the Memo issued. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh, supra, it is clearly laid down that only on the ground of technicality it should not be permitted to defeat the object of the Act and it is the overall public interest and the social object which is required to be kept in mind while interpreting the provisions of the Act and decide the case thereunder. The apart, in the case on hand, though the charge-sheet came to be filed in 1995, the present criminal petition came to be filed after lapse of 5 years. The delay also has not been properly explained so as to question the impugned orders.
9. It is clear from the records that after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed whereas the petitioner has slept over the matter all along for more than 5 years has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings. Under these circumstances, if the proceedings were to be quashed only on the ground that the Superintendent of Police has not assigned 'any reasons' while authorising the Police Inspector to conduct investigation does not arise. If it is quashed, it amounts to abuse of process of law.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.