P R VENUGOPAL Vs. G P RAJASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three revisions are considered together for passing common order since they involve similar question of law and fact. The petitioner in Cri: R. P. Nos. 822 and 820 of 1999 is common. Respondents 1 to 3 in cri. R. P: Nos. 822 and 820 of 1999 are also common. In Cri. R. P. No. 821 of 1999 the petitioner and two respondents are different. The Inspector general of Lokayukta is one of the respondent common in all the petitions. The petitioners filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the cr. P. C. before the Special Judge-cum-Principal Sessions Judge, raichur, under the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting the respondents 1 to 3 in Cri. R. P. Nos. 820 and 822 of 1999 and respondents 1 and 2 in Cri. R. P. No. 821 of 1999. The Special Judge referred the complaint for investigation to the Inspector of Lokayukta, Raichur under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. The Inspector, Lokayukta in turn entertaining doubt referred the matter to Inspector General of Police, lokayukta who on the basis of the opinion of the Registrar of Lokayukta directs return of the complaint to the Court. In the opinion given by the registrar of Lokayukta it is said that power of directing investigation by the police is vested only in the Magistrate and not in the Sessions Judge. To come to the said view, the provisions of Sections 156 (3), 190 and 191 of the Cr. P. C. have been referred to. The Sessions Judge's order of reference of the complaint for investigation was held to be bad. Accordingly, it is directed the complaints to be returned to the Court.

(2.) PURSUANT to the said orders of the Inspector General of Police of lokayukta, the Sessions Judge recalls the order of the reference made to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. and directs the complainant to proceed with the private complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present revisions are filed.

(3.) IT is unfortunate that the elementary principles of law are taken amiss by the responsible authorities functioning under the Lokayukta act. The designated Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is the special Judge. The Sessions Judges are designated as Special Judges under the Act and while functioning as a Special Judge, he is vested with all the original powers of Magistracy and deemed to be a Magistrate for the purpose of trial. This proposition of law is reiterated by the Supreme court in A. R. Antulay v Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another.