STATE U T CHANDIGARH Vs. INDERPAL MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State (U.T. Chandigarh) has filed present revision petition. The grievance of the State is against the order of discharge passed by Special Judge, Chandigarh whereby accused respondent was discharged on the ground that investigation was carried by the person who was not competent and was lower in the rank than prescribed. The accused respondent Inderpal Mahajan was named as accused in case FIR No.1 dated 28.05.1992 registered at Police Station (Vigilance Cell), U.T. Chandigarh under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The above said FIR was lodged at the instance of Satnam Singh Gill, who along with his brother Avinash appeared before the SHO, Police Station (Vigilance) Sector 9, Chandigarh. The complainant stated that he was an agriculturist and was also President of Blood Donors Cooperative House Building Society. It was stated that he was President from last three years. Earlier thereto, Charanjit Singh was the President. Charanjit Singh was having grudge against the complainant. Therefore, from last 21/2 years, he was submitting complaints against the complainant. One complaint was pending before the Department of Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh. This complaint was enquired into by present accused respondent, who was then posted as Inspector, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh. The complainant was called by the respondent to his office and number of communications were issued to this effect. The accused also used to threaten the complainant. The accused had issued one communication bearing No.1679 dated 20th March, 1992 calling upon the complainant to appear in his office on 27th March, 1992 along with the entire record. The complainant reached in the office of the accused on 27th March, 1992 at 10.00 a.m. He was made to sit for the whole day and in the evening next date was given. In this manner, accused used to call the complainant on many occasions. Later complainant was called on 20th May, 1992. Then orally he was called on 27th May, 1992. The complainant approached the accused respondent and stated that he has appeared in his office many times and the record is in consonance with the rules and regulations. At that stage, Inderpal Mahajan accused respondent stated that he will have to spend something. On asking of the complainant, Rs.10,000/- were demanded as bribe. Later the matter was settled for Rs.5000/-. The complainant went to the office of Cooperative Societies, Sector 17, where Avinash Singh met him. Along with him, the complainant met accused respondent and told him that he could not arrange for Rs.5000/- but he has brought Rs.2000/-. The accused told that whatever amount has been arranged, the same be paid during the lunch time. The conscious of the complainant was pricked. He along with Avinash Singh came to the Police Station (Vigilance), where he handed over currency notes of Rs.2000/- and made a request that action be taken. Thereafter, raiding party was arranged and raid was conducted, and the amount was recovered from the accused respondent. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. An application was filed by the accused respondent that Inspector Jasbir Singh Sawhney was not competent to investigate the matter in view of the provisions of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires that matter should be investigated by DSP. Reply to the application was filed by the Chandigarh Administration. It was stated that Jasbir Singh Sawhney was duly notified as competent officer to hold investigation.

(2.) The judgments relied by the trial Court and the view formulated is not in consonance with the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court. In 'State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh' 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 778, it was held that investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of GDSP will not vitiate the investigation and the notification issued under the old Act shall prevail. Therefore, the view formulated by the trial Court to discharge the accused respondent no longer holds the field.

(3.) At this stage, Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Prachi Sharma, has stated that in the present case, complainant has expired, the Investigating Officer has been dismissed from service and accused respondent has also retired in year 2008. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, FIR was registered in the year 1992. The accused respondent has already suffered a protracted trial of about 18 years. Therefore, in case the matter is remanded back to the trial Court, a grave injustice will be caused to the accused respondent. It is further submitted that in 'State Inspector of Police Visakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri' 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 53, it was held that if an officer lower in rank investigates the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the authorization by Superintendent of Police in favour of that officer is required. The above said observation in present case is not attracted. Under the old Act Investigating Officer was notified as officer competent to investigate. In Harnek Singh's case (supra) notification under old Act has been upheld. Present revision petition has been filed on a short ground that the view formulated by the trial Court was erroneous, as a notification was already issued in favour of the Investigating Officer. Since the view formulated by the trial Court no longer holds good, therefore, there is no other option except to remand the matter to the trial Court. The arguments raised by counsel for the accused respondent that the right of speedy trial vest in him and for 18 years he has suffered protracted trial cannot be considered by this Court in the present revision petition. However, as prayed, liberty is granted to the accused respondent to seek quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the accused respondent, if so advised, may raise all other arguments, which are available to him in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. including right of speedy trial. As a result of above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court may summon the accused respondent to stand trial. Records be sent to the trial Court at once. With the observations made above, present revision is disposed of.