MAHAVIR PRASAD HRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case No. 22/97 before the Special Judge, Jabalpur. The Special Judge vide impugned order dated 15-12-1998 directed framing of charge under those provisions and have actually framed charges under those provisions alleging that the petitioner in his public capacity as Superintending Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board possessed assets amounting to Rs. 4,02,037.10 disproportionate to his known source of income during the period March 1965 to December, 1993.

(2.) The petitioner approaches this Court in revisional jurisdiction with two-fold assertion; (i) that section 17 proviso 2 requires pre- authorization by Superintendent of Police to investigate into offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) r/w 13(2) of the Act. It is urged in this case although there purports to be such an authorization dated 19-1-1993 by S.P., Special Police Establishment Office, it is only a mechanical authorization by filling in blanks the names of this accused and the rest is the mere typed order or it may have been even cyclostyled and there was no application of mind. For this one pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal cited at AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) and a judgment of single Bench of this Court of Gwalior Bench in Cr. R. 1983/96 titled Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. State of M. P. decided on 6-1-1977 are relied upon, (ii) the second leg of the argument is regarding merits that there is no prima facie inference that the accused was possessed of assets disproportionate to his known source of income as the assets in the names of the family members have also been included which should not have been included without reason.

(3.) As regard the first objection : Section 17 of the P. C. Act is in following terms :