ASHOK JAIA Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking to quash Complaint No. 58/1 of 1998 titled "Supreme Court of India v. Milap Chand Jagotra" under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').

(2.) The petitioner has taken various grounds in his petition but has confined his arguments only to the question that the Supreme Court of India had committed an error in directing the filing of complaint by Registrar General of the Supreme Court and as such the complaint was not legally maintainable inasmuch as Section 340(3) of the Code provides how the complaint is to be made under Section 195 of the Code and who is competent to sign the same. Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 340 of the Code provides that on an application made under Section 340 of the Code for filling a complaint under Section 195(l)(b) of the Code, the complaint is required to be made and the same has to be signed. Clause (a) of Section 340(3) of the Code provides that in case a complaint is made by the High Court, the same has to be signed by an officer who may be appointed by the Court and Clause (b) thereof further provides that in any other case the complaint is required to be signed by Presiding Officer of the Court. Hence, the complaint having been signed by the Registrar General of the Supreme Court was incompetent in law and was non est. The Code does not contemplate the filing of the complaint under Section 195 of the Code by the Supreme Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 340 of the Code reads as under: "Section 340(3) a complaint made under this section shall be signed (a) Where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint. (b) In any other case, by the Presiding Officer of the Court.

(3.) I have heard Counsel for the petitioner and examined the provisions of Section 340(3) of the Code. It appears to the that in Sub-clause (a) of Section 340(3) where High Court is mentioned, it also includes the Supreme Court and that clause (b) of Section 340(3) is applicable to Courts subordinate to the High Court. The Supreme Court is a Court within the meaning of the Code and a higher constitutional functionary and therefore like the High Court can maintain a complaint filed by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint. In the present case, the Supreme Court has directed the Registrar General to file the complaint. I see no grounds to quash the complaint on the ground that the same has not been filed by the Presiding Officer of the Bench of the Supreme Court. In view of the above, Cr.M.C 2452/2000 is dismissed. Cr.M.C. dismissed.