A R M MANICKAM CHETTIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of proceedings taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Central Act II of 1947 (as amended by Act 59 of 1952) hereinafter called the Act. The petitioner herein, one Manickam Chettiar, was the Superintendent of Central Excise at Tiruppur. On the ground that information was received by the Special Police Establishment, that the petitioner had received illegal gratification in the course of discharge of his official duties from the licencees of power-looms in connection with the grant of licences, in Somanur and surrounding areas, one Sri T. Raghavan, Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Madras applied to the District Magistrate (Judicial) Coimbatore for sanction for investigation of the matter under Section 5-A (c) of the Act. In that application for sanction, it was mentioned that one Mr. Lakshminarayanan, Superintendent of Police, and one Mr. J. A. Harries, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who could investigate the cases without the prior sanction of the Magistrate were unavoidably engaged at Madras in important administrative matters and supervision of important cases, and that sanction should therefore 1be granted to Mr. Raghavan to investigate the case for offences under Section 161 I. P. C. read with Section 5 (1) (d) and Section 5 (2) of the Act. The District Magistrate accorded the requisite sanction for investigation by his order dated 2. 5. 1964 in which he has stated that after having gone through the papers and heard Mr. T. Raghavan, he was satisfied that the investigation in the above case may be done by Mr. Raghavan. During investigation, a search of the house of the petitioner was made, and in the course of the search a sum of Rs. 15410 in the shape of currency notes mostly of the denomination of Rs. 100 was recovered. As a result of the investigation, C. C. 11 of 1965 was registered (and filed) and is now pending on the file of the Court of the Additional Special Judge, Madras Division.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a petition before the Additional Special Judge Crl. M. P. 27 of 1966 on 25. 1. 1966 for dropping the entire proceedings and for an order directing a proper investigation of the case by a proper authority. The learned Judge dismissed that application. Even though several objections were raised before the lower Court, Mr. G. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, confined himself to and urged the following two points. (1) As the entire occurrence and the offences, if any, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner were all within the sub-division of Tiruppur, the District Magistrate, Coimbatore has no jurisdiction to grant the sanction for investigation of the case, and that it is only the First Class Magistrate, having jurisdiction over the sub-division of Tiruppur that will have jurisdiction to grant the sanction for investigation. (2) Assuming that the District Magistrate, Coimbatore, had jurisdiction to accord the requisite sanction, the learned Magistrate has acted in a mechanical manner without realising the seriousness and the implications of the mandatory character of Section 5-A (c) of the Act, that the reasons given by the Inspector of Police as to why the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent, who should normally investigate the case could not do so, would not justify the grant of the requisite sanction. The District Magistrate should have made further enquiries into the matter about the nature and the details of the other official work which demanded the attention of the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent of Police and ought not to have accepted the ipse dixit of Mr. Raghavan, the Inspector of Police.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with the points raised it is necessary to make a brief reference to the scheme or object and the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Central Act II of 1947, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Central Act 46 of 1952 and the important amendments made therein from time to time, After the World War No. II corruption amongst public servants posed a serious problem to the Government, and it was realised that the existing law in the Indian Penal Code relating to bribery and corruption amongst public servants was wholly inadequate to meet the exigencies of the time and the imperative need was felt to introduce a special legislation with a view to eradicate the evil of bribery and corruption. The Prevention of Corruption Act, Act II of 1947, was enacted creating a new offence called 'criminal misconduct' in the discharge of duties by public servants. Offences under Sections 161 and 165 I. P. C. were made cognisable along with the offence of criminal misconduct, with the condition that the investigation could be carried on only by certain designated police officers of a particular rank and investigation by officers of a lower rank with the previous sanction of the Magistrate. The punishment for the offence was made deterrent. Further, the main object was to secure a speedy procedure to dispose of the cases expeditiously and without any delay. After watching the progress of the working of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947, Parliament enacted the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952.