LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SHRI RAM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
v.
SHRI RAM SINGH
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.)
·B
Prevention of Conuption Act 1988 (PCA), Ss. 13 (1) (e), 13(2) r/w S.17
second proviso-Superintendent of Police (SP) making an order under S.17
authorising Inspector to investigate crime u/s 13 (1) (e) of PCA against respon-
dents-<:hargesheets filed on basis of such investigation-High Cowt quashing C
proceedings against respondents on the ground that investigation was not by
an authorised officer in terms of S.17-Held, High Cowt's interpretation of
S.17 and fznding that investigation was not by an authorised officer unsus-
tainable in law; SP had applied his mind while passing the order authorising
Inspector to investigate-Code of Criminal Procedure 1974, S.482.
C1111seq1.1ent upon investigations end raids conducted, a criminal
case under S.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 19311 (PCA) was
resistered against respondent RS as he was found to have acquired prop:i:r-
ties disproporti1mate to his known sources of income during the p:riod
\'then h: was a sub-inspect11r, Excise and District Excise Officer. Cases on
similar cha~s w:re registered against respondent JS, a sub-ins}H!ctor
and respondent KV, an assistant engineer. In relation to these cases the
Sup:rintendent of Police (SP) after being av;are of the FIRs reeistered
against the rer;pond:mts and thl! }H!nding Investigations, mude orders tl/s
17 of the PCA aut1111rising the Ins}H!ctor to investiGUte tlae cases.
Allowing the p2titions filed by the respondents under S.482 of th:
Code of Cric.uinal Procedure, 1974 (Cr.P.C.), the High Court quashed the
proceedings holding that the investigation had not bl!en conducted by an
authorised 11fficer in terms of S.17 of the PCA. The State appeal:d to this
Court.
Allowin~ the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The judgments of the High Court regarding the inter-
premtion of S.17 aod holding the investigation to have not been inves-
D
E
F
G
tib>zted by an authorised officer are not sustainable in law. (593-E]
H
579
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 1 S.C.R.
A
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992] 1 Suppl. SCC 335, explained.
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR (1995) SC 196, referred to.
1.2. The Superintendent of IPolice appears to have applied his mind
and passed an order authorising the investigation by an inspector under
B the peculiar circumstances of the case. The time between the registration
of the FIR and authorisation in terms of second proviso to Section 17
shows further the application of mind and the circumstances which
weighed with the Superintendent of Police to 4irect authorisation to order
the investigation. [593-C-D]
c
D
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
114 of 2000 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.97 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Crl. M.P. No. 2481 of 1996.
K.N. Shukla, U.R. Lalit, Uma Nath Singh, Sakesh Kumar, S.S. Khan-
duja, Yash Pal Dhingra, B.K. Satija, S.K. Gambhir, Vivt:k Gambir, Sapan
B Mutu, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ms. Sushila Shukla, Ms. Shipra Jain and L.S.
Chauhan for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SETHI, J. Heard, Leave granted.
Relying upon the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors.
v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., [1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 335 and exercising powers under
F Section 482 of tht: Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh vide the judgment impugned in these appeals quashed the inves-
tigations and consequent proceedings against the respondents initiated,
conducted and concluded by the police under Section 13(1)(e) and Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
G "the Act"). The Court found that for the offence punishable under Section
13{1){e) of the Act the investigation had not been conducted by an
authorised officer in terms of Sec:tion 17 of the Act. It was observed :
''It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence
must always be free frorn any objectionable features or infirmities
H
which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that
STATE v. RAM Sl~GH [SETHI,J.]
581
the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any ulterior A
motive. The prosecution of the accused on the basis of investigation
by a person who had no legal authority to investigate cannot be
allowed:''
In order to appreciate the legal controversy, it is proper to refeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.