S SWAMINATHAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, apprehending arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, IPC read with Sections 7 & 13(2) and 13(10)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8180 of 2008 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") seeking for a direction from this Court for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest. According to the petitioner, one Mr.Balu (defacto complainant) lodged a complaint with the respondent police on the allegation that the petitioner, being a Village Administrative Officer, received a sum of Rs.1000/- from him as bribe for giving birth certificate in the year 2006, but failed to give any birth certificate. In that petition, this Court on 10.09.2008 passed orders as follows:

(2.) THEREUPON, the petitioner filed the present M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8180/2008 seeking modification of the condition imposed in the order dated 10.09.2008 directing the petitioner to approach the Investigation Officer to execute sureties to his satisfaction into one of directing the petitioner to execute the sureties before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur, on the premise that due to personal vengeance of the Investigation Officer alone the false case has been foisted against him and if the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer to execute the sureties, he, in all probabilities, might reject the sureties and arrest and remand the petitioner to custody.

(3.) MR.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Bar argued with reference to Section 44 of the Code by contending that even Magistrates have power to arrest as per the provisions of the Code and in view of investment of such power on Magistrates, it is well open to the Court of Sessions or the High Court, while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code, to direct the accused to appear before the concerned Magistrate and execute sureties.