BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a Circle Inspector of Police, challenges the investigation, that is being conducted by the Superintendent of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) Special Cell, Kozhikode. The allegation was that, while the petitioner was working in the Police Department, he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The allegation is that he had 30 cents of land near Providence College, Kozhikode, where he has constructed a house spending about Rs. 80 lakhs and also purchased another 30 cents of land near Calicut Ramanattukara Bye Pass Road spending several lakhs. It was further alleged that, he had also purchased several lands in the name of his relatives as benami or otherwise. The Deputy Supdt. of Police, VACB, Kozhikode, was directed by the Special Judge to conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out whether there is any truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioner. After getting report from the Dy.S.P., VACB, Kozhikode, and on perusal of the same the learned Special Judge, Kozhikode, was satisfied that there is truth in the allegations made against the petitioner/accused, and thus the learned Special Judge directed investigation to be conducted by the Superintendent of Police Special Cell, VACB, Kozhikode, under S.156(3) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The learned senior counsel, Sri. Sreekumar argues vehemently that a vigilance enquiry ordered by the Director of VACB, is pending and so the order passed by the learned Special Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner thus seeks to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge directing investigation under S.156(3) of Cr.P.C. The request made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is strongly resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri. N. Suresh. It is submitted by him that, in fact, there is no necessity for the court to order preliminary enquiry to be conducted in such matters, nor is there any requirement under law which enjoins on the court to order preliminary enquiry before passing the order under S.156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is pointed out by the learned prosecutor that there is no provision in the PC Act, 1988 or in the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplating a special procedure with regard to the registration of F.I.R. or the conduct of investigation in relation to offence under P.C. Act, 1988.

(3.) So far as the case on hand is concerned, in fact, there is no necessity to probe deep into those contentions, since in this case, it has been specifically noted by the learned Special Judge in Paragraph 2 of the impugned order that after receiving the complaint filed by the complainant (the convener of Powravakasha Samithi) a preliminary enquiry report was called for from Dy. S.P., VACB and pursuant thereto a report was submitted by the Dy. S.P. It was noted by the learned Special Judge: