STATE OF KERALA Vs. NAVAB RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed before a judicial magistrate of first class alleging that a public servant (Municipal Commissioner) and two other persons jointly committed offences falling within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The complainant prayed to the magistrate to forward the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') with a direction to start investigation. Learned magistrate on receipt of the complaint passed the order accordingly and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance to register a case and investigate the same. State of Kerala has now challenged the said order. Two persons arrayed in the complaint as accused (other than the Municipal Commissioner) have also challenged the action of the magistrate.

(2.) Pursuant to the direction issued by the magistrate a crime was registered by the vigilance cell and an FIR was prepared for the offence under S.13(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Here the contention is that a magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass such an order under S.156(3) of the Code in respect of offences falling within the ambit of the Act.

(3.) Under S.156(1) of the Code the officer in charge of a police station has power to investigate a cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area would have power to inquire into or try under Chap.13 of the Code. Sub-section (3) says any magistrate empowered under S.190 of the Code may order such an investigation as above mentioned. S.190 of the Code empowers a magistrate of first class to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts etc. The said power is subject to the provisions of Chap.14 of the Code. S.193 of the Code contains a restriction that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a magistrate. But the restriction does not apply to a special judge appointed under the Act since S.5 of the Act empowers a special judge to take cognizance of the offences under the Act "without the accused being committed to him for trial".