(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 Sec. 156(3)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure(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 First Information Report was prepared for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Here the contention is that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass such an order under Sec.156(3) of the Code in respect of offences falling within the ambit of the Act.
(3.) THE only court which has jurisdiction to try the case involving offences under the Act is the Special Judge's court. This is clear from Sec.4 of the Act which says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code the offences specified in the Act shall be tried only by a Special Judge. THE Act provides that only a person who is or has been a Sessions Judge shall be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge. THE cumulative effect of such provisions is that only a Special Judge is competent to take cognizance of the offences specified in the Act. No Magistrate can therefore take cognizance of such offences. If a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of certain offences, he has no power to order investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code in respect of such offences.