UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been referred to a Division Bench under Section 29, Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act by a Single Bench. The facts out of which this revision arises are briefly as follows:

(2.) ON 5-2-1955 an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (l) (b), Prevention of Corruption Act was registered. On 7-2-1955, the Deputy Superintendent of Police gave a direction to Inspector Saksena and Mr. Saksena applied to Additional District Magistrate, Indore for permission to investigate the case and arrest the accused. The permission was granted by Mr. Acharya and the investigation was conducted by Inspector Saksena. On 15-6-1955 sanction was obtained under Section 6 (c) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act and on 24-6-1955 a charge-sheet was submitted. On 2-8-1955 the accused sought an adjournment which was granted. On 18-8-1955 an application was moved on behalf of the accused to the effect that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was the competent officer to investigate and that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions violated the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was prayed that Dy. S. P. be examined to find out why he could not conduct the investigation. On 18-8-1955 the Court ordered that the examination was unnecessary. On 24-10-1955 an application was made for summoning Mr. Acharya and Dy. S. P. as witnesses. In the alternative it was prayed that reinvestigation be ordered. On 3-111955 the Special Judge ordered that the present proceedings are set aside and the accused is discharged. He also directed that the Dy. S. P. , Indore should conduct reinvestigation of the offence from the stage it was entrusted by him to the Inspector and then put up a fresh challan, if he deemed fit, Against this order the Union of India filed the present revision. When it came up for hearing before Samvatsar J. he referred the case to the Division Bench as it involved an important question of law.

(3.) THE learned Advocate-General raised three contentions before us: