UNION OF INDIA ETC. REP. THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE versus T. NATHAMUNI

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 01-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 297 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. REP. THROUGH 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. 
v . 
. T. NATHAMUNI 
(Crminal Appeal No. 2512-2513 of 2014) 
- - -
--- --
~ 
DECEMBER 01, 2014 
[M.Y: EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - s. 17 - Persons 
authorized to investigate - Complaint alleging case of bribery · C 
against respondent-Inspector of income tax - Investigation by 
Inspector of Police - Special Judge for CBI cases permitting . 
Sub-Inspector of police to investigate the matter under the 
1988 Act-· Completion of investigation by Sub-Inspector as. 
a/so submission of charge sheet and court took cognizance 
D 
-
Thereafter. respondent seeking quashing of the order 
passed by the Special Judge - High Court set aside the order 
holding that as per the provisions of s. 17, no officer below 
the rank of Inspector of Police was authorized by the Govt. to 
investigate the case without permission of the Court and that 
E 
the Special Court without assigning any reason in the order 
permitted the Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the matter 
-
Sustainability of -
Held: N o case of prejudice or 
miscarriage of justice by reason of investigation by the Sub-
Inspector of Police made out - Order of the High Court setting 
F 
aside the permission granted bYthe Magistrate to investigate 
the matter by Sub-inspector not sustainable. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: On the basis of the ·permission acc.orded by G .·. 
the Magistrate, the Sub-Inspector, CBI proceeded with the 
investigation and finally submitted charge-sheet .. It was 
only during the trial, said order of Magistrate was 
questioned by the respondent by filing a criminal petition 
297 ~. · 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
in the High Court. The Single Judge held that since the 
special court without assigning any reason permitted 
Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate the matter, the 
order is not in accordance with law and disposed of the 
petition. The order was passed by the Special Judge on 
B 
request and in the interest of justice, investigation 
pursuant to such order did not suffer from want of 
jurisdiction and thus, in the facts of the case, the High 
Court erred in law in interfering with such investigation 
more so when it was already completed. The High Court 
C 
erred in overlooking the gist of order of Special Judge 
permitting the Sub-Inspector to investigate. Further, 
having regard to the fact that no case of prejudice or 
miscarriage of justice by reason. of investigation by the 
Sub-Inspector of Police is made out, the order of the High 
0 
Court cannot be sustained in law. [Para 12, 13, 18, 19] 
[303-H, F; 307-F-G] 
L 
Dr. M.C. Sulkunte vs. The State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 
508; Muni Lai vs. Delhi Administration 1971 Suppl. SCR 
276:AIR 1971 SC 1525; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 
E 
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259:AIR 1992 SC 604; AC. Sharma 
vs. Delhi Admn. 1973 (3) SCR 477:(1973) 1 SCC 726 -
referred to. 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: · 
AIR 1971 SC 508 
Referred to 
1971 Suppl. SCR 276 
Referred to 
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 Referred to 
1973 (3) SCR 477 
Referred to 
Para 14 
Para 15 
Para 16 
Para 17 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2512-2513 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.7.2013 of the 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. REP. THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT 299 
OF POLICE v. T. NATHAMUNI 
Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras in Criminal O.P. Nos. 
A 
1943 and 6464 of 2010. 
K. Radhakrishnan, T.A. Khan, Farrukh Rasheed; B.V. 
Balaram Das for the Appellant. 
J.C. Gupta, Dharm Singh, Ram Shankar (for R.V. 
B 
Kameshwaran) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeals are directed against the common 
judgment and order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Madurai 
Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.0.P. No.1943 & 6464 of 
2010, whereby the High Court set aside the order passed by 
c 
the Trial court pennitting a Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate 
D 
the matter under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 
the basis of a complaint from one S. Muniraj a case being RC 
50(A)/2009 was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, 
E 
ACS, Chennai against respondent - T. Nathamuni, Inspector of 
Income Tax on the allegation that the accused had demanded 
an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. A trap was laid . 
and allegedly the accused was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.