SATYENDRA YADAV @ SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Vigilance. No one appears for opposite party no. 3 even after service of notices, although a vakalatnama has been filed on her behalf.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the entire prosecution and the order taking cognizance dated 5.2.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in , Special Case No. 17 of 2006 pending in the court of the Special Judge, VigilanceII, Patna, arising out of Singeshwar PS. Case No. 0142/99 registered under Sections 420, 161, 120B of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance has been taken under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order taking cognizance as well as the investigation on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not competent and has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act to take cognizance of the offences under Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. it is further submitted that the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police and the Sub -Inspector of Police, who have investigated the offences, are also not authorized to investigate into any offence in view of Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under Sec. 17 of the Act only a Police Officer of the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Inspector of Police specially authorized is empowered to investigate such offence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State in answer to the aforesaid submissions sought to rely upon the provisions of Section 460 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which any Magistrate, who is not empowered by law to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or (b) of subSection (1) and Sec. 190 but erroneously in good faith does that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered.