MSA MAHALINGA SHIVA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner, being the then Block Development Officer. Seraikella Block, for quashing the entire proceeding against him, pending in the Court of Spl. Judge Vigilance. Ranchi, in S.R. No. 33 of 2001 arising out of Seraikella P.S. case No. 65 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 367 of 2001, which was instituted for the offence under Sections 406/409 of the I.P.C. and Section 7/13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Block Development Officer, Seraikella and there is direct allegation against him to have taken as bribe Rs. 3,000/- each from some persons and Rs. 2,000/- each from others, who were the beneficiaries of Indira Awas Yojna. On the basis of the written information given by the beneficiaries, Seraikella P.S. Case No. 65 of 2001 was instituted against the petitioner and the other accused persons and investigation was taken up. It appears that the investigation of this case was made by a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, including the petitioner, for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420 of the I.P.C. and under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the criminal proceeding, pending against the petitioner on three grounds. The first ground taken by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Sanction Order passed by the State Government for prosecution of the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority, as It was issued by the Secretary of the Law Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The next ground taken by the Learned Counsel is that the institution of the case against the petitioner was in teeth of the circular of the State Government as contained in Memo No. 1075 dated 17th November, 1986 which was issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar in its Department of Home. The last ground taken for challenge of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is that Investigating Officer in the case was; below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and accordingly, the Investigation made under the Prevention of Corruption Act was absolutely illegal, in view of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which clearly provides that no officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate the case under this Act.