SHAFEEK T A Vs. N SASEENDRAN MELAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of a complaint filed by him before the Special Court (Vigilance), Kozhikode, alleging some offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act"). The respondent is the Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnani in Malappuram District. The revision petitioner had preferred a complaint before the police alleging attempt for cheating, and the complaint also alleged the offence under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. On the said complaint, a crime was registered at the Ponnani Police Station as Crime No. 644 of 2016. After investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnani, submitted final report referring the crime on the finding that it is a false complaint. The revision petitioner entered appearance before the learned Magistrate, and filed objection to the final report. His objection is that the Sub Inspector is not competent to make investigation when an offence under the Information Technology Act is involved. The learned Magistrate considered the objection, and finding substance in it, the learned Magistrate returned the final report to the police with a direction to conduct a proper and effective further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. In the meantime, the revision petitioner brought another complaint against the Sub Inspector with an allegation that he referred the crime on the influence of the named accused, and that he investigated the case without authority with the knowledge that he is not competent to make such investigation. The complaint alleged the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

(2.) The learned Special Judge perused the revision petitioner's complaint meticulously to see what exactly is the offence alleged in the complaint, punishable under the PC Act, and on the finding that the complaint does not disclose any offence punishable under the PC Act, the learned Special Judge rejected the complaint (C.M.P.No. 47/2018), by order dated 07.02018. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) It is well settled that if a complaint made before a Special Court under the PC Act does not reveal or disclose any offence punishable under the PC Act, the Special Court can very well reject the complaint even without proceeding to the necessary enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. This Court, and also the Honourable Supreme Court, have consistently held that the Special Court exercising jurisdiction under the PC Act will have jurisdiction to take cognizance on a complaint only if the complaint discloses any offence punishable under the PC Act. Now let me see what exactly is the offence alleged in this case by the revision petitioner.