FULCHAND AMBARAM PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates for the respective applicants, and Mr. P. G. Desai, the learned P.P. for the respondent-State.

(2.) Al1 these applications raise a common question of law and with the consent of the learned Advocates, are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(3.) The succinct facts are : The applicants in all these applications are public servants who have been charged for commission of offence punishable under Secs. 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").. I am informed that in neither of the cases, the trial has yet begun. In some of the matters, charge has been framed against the accused-applicants while in some of the matters, even the charge is yet to be framed. At this stage, the applicants-accused made application before the trial Court seeking discharge on the ground that the investigation carried out by the concerned Police Inspectors of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in respect of the respective offences was illegal and is contrary to the provisions contained in Sec. 17 of the Act. The reports made by such officers are, therefore, null and void and the Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to proceed further on the basis of such reports. It was, therefore, prayed that the Court may declare that the cognizance of offence taken by the trial Court on the basis of unauthorised report of the investigating officer is illegal and for consequential reliefs. The said applications were heard and rejected by the learned trial Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have preferred these revision applications before this Court under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.