S KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision Case filed under section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order made in Spl. CMP No.525 of 05 in Spl. CC No.4 of 05 dated 6.4.06 on the file of the Spl. Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.)The petitioner who was serving as the Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi was charged with offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) SPECIFICALLY referring to the embargo found under section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner who stood charged as stated above moved a petition invoking the provision under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for discharge from the criminal prosecution launched by the respondent in Special CC No.4 of 2005. The trial court having referred to the sanction accorded for prosecution as against the petitioner herein without actually adverting to the ambit of section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was the main crux of the issue dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking discharge.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit referring to three Government Orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu that the Inspector of Police has been conferred with the power to investigate and arrest without warrant any of the public servants as contemplated under the definition part of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is his submission that the petitioner has set up a very technical stand on the premises, that no power was conferred on the Inspector of Police either to investigate the case or to arrest an accused public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. THErefore, he would submit that the plea for discharge is not at all tenable.