THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS versus DR. SALEEM UR REHMAN

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 29-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 864
864
THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS
v.
DR. SALEEM UR REHMAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2021)
OCTOBER 29, 2021
[M.R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006: s.3, second proviso,
s.5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) – Authorisation by Senior Superintendent of Police
to the inspector to enquire into the FIR for the offences under
ss.5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the J&K PC Act, 2006 and s.120-B of the
Ranbir Penal Code, legality of – Requirement to give reasons in the
authorisation – Held: It cannot be said that there was non-
application of mind on the part of the Senior Superintendent of
Police authorising the inspector to enquire into the FIR for the stated
offences – The inspector who was authorised to investigate the FIR
for the said offences was also authorised to arrest the accused
persons whenever and wherever necessary – In the said
authorisation, it was specifically mentioned that he will conduct the
investigation of the case under the supervision of the Superintendent
of Police – Therefore, all precautions were taken by the Senior
Superintendent of Police authorising the Inspector to investigate
the FIR – Even otherwise, a plain reading of the second proviso to
s.3 shows that only two requirements are required to be satisfied,
namely, (i) authorisation in writing by an officer of the Vigilance
Organisation not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of
Police to an officer of not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police
to investigate such offences; and (ii) such officer authorised may
investigate the offences so specified in the order of authorisation –
Therefore, as such, there is no requirement of giving either special
reasons nor there is requirement to mention reasons – What is
required to be considered is whether there is an application of mind
with respect to offences and the relevant provisions with respect to
authorisation – Considering the above authorisation, it cannot be
said that such authorisation authorising inspector to investigate
the FIR can be said to be vitiated and/or can be said to be void
which warrants quashing of the entire criminal proceedings
including the FIR – Ranbir Penal Code – s.120-B.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
865
J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006: s.155 – Non-
compliance of – By impugned order, High Court observed that for
an investigating agency to investigate the group of offences which
include the non-cognizable one, it must obtain a sanction from the
concerned Magistrate before launching the investigation and in
the instant case no such sanction from the concerned Magistrate
was obtained – Propriety – Held: The substantive offences against
the respondent were under J&K PC Act, 2006 and as per s.3 of the
Act, all offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable –
As such, the said issue is squarely covered against the respondent
in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Pravin Chandra
Mody wherein it was held that where the information discloses a
cognizable as well as a non-cognizable offence, the police officer
is not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence which
may arise out of the same facts and he can include that non-
cognizable offence in the charge-sheet which he presents for a
cognizable offence – The offence under the Prevention of Corruption
Act is a substantive offence and the investigation in respect of the
offence under the PC Act, when considered and coupled with the
offence of conspiracy, there is no requirement of prior sanction of
the Magistrate – Merely because the offence of the conspiracy may
be involved, investigation into the offence under the PC Act which
is cognizable is not required to await a sanction from the Magistrate,
as that would lead to a considerable delay and affect the
investigation and it will derail the investigation – Therefore, the
High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground
that the offence under s.120B is a non-cognizable, prior sanction
as required under s.155 of J&K Cr.P.C. is not obtained.
Vigilance Manual, 2008: Rule 3.16 – Validity of – A close
reading of Rule 3.16 showed that the same can be said to be in the
interest of the accused and/or a person against whom the allegations
are made and to safeguard the accused against frivolous complaints
– As per Clause 3.16 only after the Preliminary Enquiry is conducted
and there is a prima facie case found, an FIR is required to be
register

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.