STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHIV BHAGWAN SARAOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 11. 1. 1999 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption, Kota whereby he declined to accept the final report submitted by the policy under Sec. 173 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are undisputed. First Information Report No. 45/96 was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur against the accused persons complaining of commission of an offence by them punishable under Sec. 13 (1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with sec. 420 and 120-B of IPC. After investigation the Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that there is no proof of the accused viz. the first information report of having committed any crime. He, therefore, submitted final report in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Kota. However, the learned Judge by his order of that date refused to accept the final report on the ground that is was being presented by a person other than officer-in-charge of a police station. It is pertinent to note that a judgment delivered by this Court in SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 146/89 on 17. 11. 1989 in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Jaswant Singh (1), was cited before learned Judge as has been noticed by him in para No. 5 of his order. However, the learned Judge inspite of the decision ignoring the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh relied on an earlier judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in Mangal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2), wherein it has been observed by this Court that in so far as Sec. 154 Cr. P. C. is concerned, officer-in-charge of the Station House. He, therefore, rejected the final report.

(3.) TAKING into consideration these notifications the definitions given in Sec. 2 (o) and 2 (s) of Cr. P. C. in relation to officer in charge and police station, this Court in Hotilal Parashar's case (supra) held that on Inspector of the Anti Corruption Department was competent to present a report under Sec/ 173 Cr. P. C. It was further observed that definitions must be construed in law of the Government notifications issued in July, 1957 and so construed the Anti Corruption Branch is a police station and all officers above the rank of Sub Inspector can exercise the powers of the officer in charge and hence the order of the trial Judge was set aside.