BHUMSINGH UDAYSINGH KACHWAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondentthe Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raidhanded while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/ in cash.

(2.) The challenge in this Petition is not on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has not been conferred with the status of a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code. He urged that under Subsection (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, the First Information Report can be registered only by an officer incharge of a police station. He submitted that as the Anti Corruption Bureau is not the police station within the meaning of the said Code, even assuming that there is a notification under which the fifth Respondent is made an officer incharge of the police station, the Anti Corruption Bureau is not at all a police station. He, therefore, submitted that the registration of the First Information Report is illegal. His second submission is based on the practice allegedly followed in other parts of the States. He urged that in other parts of the State whenever any information in relation to the offence under the said Act of 1988 is received by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the offence is registered with the concerned police station having jurisdiction over the area where the offence has been committed. After registration of the offence in the regular police station, the investigation is carried out by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that only in the case of City of Mumbai, a separate procedure is carved out. He submitted that the said procedure adopted by the Anti Corruption Bureau in Mumbai is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as all the Accused are entitled to equal treatment. He urged that the reliance placed on Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 will not help the State as it is, in as much as the same does not confer a status of police station on the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted the Notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951"). He urged that Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 does not confer a power on the State to declare Anti Corruption Bureau as a Police Station. He, therefore, submitted that the action of the registration of the First Information Report by the fifth Respondent itself is an illegal and, therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an offence has been registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has been conferred the status of an officer incharge of the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because some other procedure followed in other parts of the State, the First Information Report is not rendered illegal.

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to Subsection (1) of Section 154 of the said Code which reads thus: