A. ASHOK ANAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused in Special C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Puducherry. He filed the above petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge sheet filed in Special C.C.No.1 of 2008.

(2.) Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent/first accused is an employee of the Government of Puducherry and he is not the employee of the Central Government and therefore, in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by the second respondent/first accused under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be investigated only by the State Police and the first respondent police has no jurisdiction to investigate the case and therefore, the entire case is vitiated and hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, "State" as respects any period after the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, shall mean a State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution and shall include a Union territory and therefore, Puducherry being a Union territory is also to be treated and construed as a State. As per Entry 80 of the Union list contained in the Constitution, the police of one State cannot exercise powers in any area outside the State without the consent of the Government of the State in which such area is situated and as per Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Puducherry, has to be construed as a State and therefore, in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by the employees of the Government of Puducherry under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, the first respondent has no jurisdiction without the consent of the Government of Puducherry. Admittedly, consent was not obtained and therefore, the entire investigation is vitiated and the usurpation of power by the first respondent is illegal and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that a Notification dated 14.2.1989 was issued under Article 239 (1) of the Constitution of India by the President of India by which the power was conferred on the State Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act to exercise all powers and discharge functions under that Act. He therefore, submitted that by the aforesaid Notification, the administrator, Lieutenant Governor or Chief Commissioner are empowered to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the State Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, the first respondent has no power to investigate the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the employees of the Union territory without getting permission from the Union territory. He also referred to the Notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 20.11.2000 whereby the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry was pleased to authorise the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Puducherry to investigate any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 except for offence referred in clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13, which shall not be investigated without the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Unit, Puducherry. He therefore submitted that even under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 20.11.2000, the Lieutenant Governor has not exercised powers of the State Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the second respondent/first accused by ordering investigation and therefore, the investigation made by the first respondent is illegal. He also submitted that no Notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 2(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 applicable to the Union territory of Puducherry in relation to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the absence of any Notification issued under Section 2(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the assumption of jurisdiction by the first respondent is illegal. He further submitted that even if any Notification were issued earlier to the Notification issued by the President under Article 239(1) of the Constitution of India dated 14.2.1989, such Notification will not have any force. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that when a Notification is issued under Article 239(1) of the Constitution of India empowering the Lieutenant Governor to exercise all powers and discharge functions of the State Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the first respondent cannot exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the employees of the Union territory and admittedly, the second respondent/first accused is the employee of the Union territory and hence, the investigation is illegal and therefore, the charge is liable to be quashed.