G A ETHIRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law and Order, having caught in a web of trap in corruption case organised by an Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anit-Corruption, has been for a long number of years trying to wriggle out of the same by raising the ground that the investigation done by the subordinate officer, is illegal, as it is unauthorised.

(2.) Mr. G.A. Ethiraj, the petitioner herein was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District in the year 1994-95. One Syed Ibrahim of Edayankadu gave a complaint to one Jayapaul, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti -Corruption, Aranthangi, on 27-5-1995 alleging that the Deputy Superintendent of Police the petitioner herein demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for taking effective action against some persons mentioned in the complaint given by the said Syed Ibrahim which was earlier registered in Crime No. 105/95 for the offence of theft. This complaint was registered in Crime No. 2/95 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a trap was organised. Accordingly, on 27-5-1995 at about 2.45 pm. the petitioner at his residence at Aranthangi accepted the bribe amount from the said Syed Ibrahim. After receiving the pre-arranged signal, the Inspector of Police with his party conducted the test on the petitioner's hands which proved positive. Thereafter, the amount also was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner's shirt. After his arrest, he was released on bail. After completion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction from the Government, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 10-4-1996 before the Court of Special Judge, Pudukottai for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This was taken on file by the Special Court on 15-4-1996 in Special Case No. 3 of 1996 for the above offences. On receipt of summons, the petitioner has approached both the trial Court and this Court and also the State Appellate Tribunal by filing various applications seeking for cancellation of the proceedings only on the ground that the investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police, who is subordinate officer, against the Deputy Superintendent of Police, is not authorised. The present petition is one of those applications seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the Special Judge, Pudukottai.

(3.) The grounds urged in this petition are as follows : "(1) Admittedly, the petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Group B Officer. Under S. 17 of the Act, only Deputy Superintendent of Police or his equivalent rank shall investigate any offence punishable under the Act, provided Inspector of Police can investigate only when he is authorised by the State Government or by the order from a Magistrate of First Class. In the present case, the investigation has been done by the Inspector of Police without authorisation from the State Government or permission from the Magistrate of First Class. Therefore, the entire investigation is illegal. (2) G.O.Ms. No. D.1 dated 28-1-1992 would provide that trap cases against Government servants falling under Groups 'A' and 'B' shall be registered only with the prior permission from the Vigilance Commissioner and the same is not necessary only when there is an order from a Magistrate for investigation under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. The trap cases shall be organised on the orders of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Since this has not been followed in the present case, the proceedings which arise out of the said unauthorised investigation are not valid in law."