RAJ KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On August 31, 1972, Shri Gulzara Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Patiala, recorded the statement of one Jamna Devi alias Mukhtiar Kaur at Dhuri to the effect that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification in connection with a Criminal Case. After this, he applied Phenolphathalein powder to the two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each produced by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur and handed them back to her under a memo., with the direction that she should pass on these currency notes to the petitioner on demand. A ruqua was sent to the Police Station, Dhuri, on the basis of which first information report No. 143 was' lodged. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did demand and get Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification from Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was sent up for trial under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 161, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) When the petitioner appeared be fore the learned Special Judge, Sangrur, he raised an objection that the investigation in the case had been conducted in violation of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter called the Rules). The learned Special Judge however overruled this objection, framed a charge against the petitioner and fixed the case for the prosecution evidence on April 2, 1974.

(3.) The petitioner filed a petition under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code, before this Court for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the learned Special Judge. When the case came up before me in Chambers, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that when a police officer accepts bribe, he commits offence in connection with his official relations with the public within the meaning of rule 16.38 of the Rules, and that whenever a complaint is received against a police officer with the allegation that he had committed such an offence the matter has to be brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, who has to decide whether the investigation of the complaint should be conducted by a police officer or made over to a selected Magistrate having First class powers.. It was submitted that the provisions of this rule are mandatory in character and whenever non-compliance with such mandatory provisions is brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest stage, the Court is bound to take notice of the legal infirmity and to refrain from proceeding with the case unless and until the investigation had been conducted afresh in accordance with law. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed on an earlier judgment rendered by me in Criminal Revn. No. 1100 of 1972, decided on 22-10-1973 (Punj and Har) (Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab).