THE STATE OF TELANGANA versus SRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 06-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA
v.
SRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY
(Criminal Appeal No. 1662 of 2019)
DECEMBER 06, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.482 – Petition under – For quashing the charge-sheet
alleging  offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High
Court partly allowed the petition holding that there was no
authorization to register the crime and that the informant could
not be the investigating officer – However, the Court did not accept
the pleas of the accused viz. absence of preliminary inquiry before
registration of crime; absence of sanction before prosecution; and
delay in completion of the investigation – Appeal to Supreme Court
by the State as well as the accused – Held: The authorizing Officer
had discharged his duties in exercise of the powers confirmed by
the State Government – The authorization in favour of the
Investigating Officer was issued by the authorizing officer while
performing his duties in public interest – Therefore such
authorization is valid and binding as if it was an act of an officer
de jure – The High Court had no jurisdiction to decide the nature
of employment of authorising Officer while deciding a petition
u/s.482 – In the facts of the present case preliminary inquiry was
not required and sanction could be produced during the course
of trial – Matter remitted to trial court for further proceedings.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
s.17 – Non-compliance – Effect of – Held: If an investigation
is not conducted by a police officer of requisite rank and status
required u/s. 17, such lapse would be an irregularity – If such
irregularity does not result in causing prejudice, conviction will
not be vitiated on this ground – Investigation.
Constitutionalism:
Executive powers of State – Scope of – Held: Executive
powers of State is coterminus with the legislative power of the State
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 716
716
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
Legislature – State Executive has power to make regulations and
issue Government Orders in respect of a subject on which the State
Legislature has jurisdiction to make law.
Inquiry:
Preliminary inquiry – Requirement of – Before lodging FIR
– Held: Scope and ambit of preliminary inquiry before lodging an
FIR, would depend upon the facts of each case – Objective of
such inquiry is only to ensure that criminal investigation does not
initiate on frivolous and untenable complaint – In the present case,
since the relevant information was available in respect of prima facie
allegations disclosing a cognizable offence, conducting of
preliminary inquiry was not required.
Dismissing the appeal of the accused, while allowing that
of the State, the Court
HELD:  1.1 Article 310 of the Constitution of India
contemplates that except as expressly provided, every person
who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of
the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected
with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office at
the pleasure of the President. In respect of the State Services,
however, he or she holds office at the pleasure of the Governor.
In the present case, ‘K’  was re-employed for a period of one
year by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred
under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.  There is no
prohibition in any of the service rules that there cannot be any
re-employment of a person who was once in a civil service of
either the Center or the State. [Para 10] [727-D-F]
1.2 Entry 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution is the ‘Police’ (including railway and village police)
subject to the provisions of Entry 2A of List I.  Therefore,
various facets of Policing in the State fall within the legislative
competence of the State and the re-employment of a retired
personnel who was a member of Indian Police Service, falls
within the executive power of the State.  As a re-employed officer,
he was holding a civil post as his salary was being paid from the
State Exchequer.  He was discharging duties and responsibilities
in the Anti-Corruption Bureau. [Para 11] [727-G-H]
STATE OF TELANGANA v. SRI MANAGIPET @
MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
1.3 The executive power of the State is coterminous with
the legislative power of the State Legislature i.e. if the State
Legislature has jurisdiction to make law with respect to a subject,
th

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