Des Raj Patwari vs State of Punjab

J. B. Garg, J.

This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, alleging that Shri Mukhtiar Singh Inspector of Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, had no authority to lay a trap on Des Raj petitioner patwari of Revenue Halqa Kala har within the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur and that FIR No. 120 of 981990 of Police Station Bhawanigarh for offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1983, be quashed.

Briefly, the story as alleged is that Bharpur Singh possessed a consent, decree from Civil Court. against his parents and he approached. Des Raj Patwari, for making an entry of mutation in his name and for performance of this piece of work the aforesaid Patwari demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/ The complainant ultimately expressed his willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ and at the same time approached the Vigilance Department and thereafter Shri. Mukhtiar Singh Inspector of Vigilance Bureau F.S. 11, Patiala on 981990 proceeded and laid a trap and the present petitioner was apprehended and aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,000/ was recovered in, the form of ten currency notes of Rs. 100/ each. Sukhdev Singh Is alleged to be a witness to the occurrence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 49 of 1988, and it may be reproduced as under :

"Chapter IVInvestigation into cases under the Act.

Persons authorised to investigate :

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) no police, officer below the rank, (a) in case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of an Inspector of Police; (b) in the Metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other Metropolitan area notified as such under Subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police; (c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of equivalent rank shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant :

Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate ''any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefore without a warrant :

Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of Sub section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police."

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Shri Mukhtiar Singh Inspector of Vigilance Bureau F.S. 11, Patiala bad no Jurisdiction to investigate the case without permission of the Magistrate and that too in District Sangrur when his own headquarter was at Patiala.

On behalf of the respondent State of Punjab it has been pointed out that there are general notifications dated 971968, Annexure R1, and dated 1281968, Annexure R2. which empower the Inspector of Police serving the special inquiry agency of Vigilance Department of the Punjab Government to investigate such cases in the ''whole of Punjab and that these notifications empowered the Inspectors ''of Police under the old Act known as Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and because the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1988 are analogous to that of Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the notifications Annexures R1 and R2 hold good by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In Ashoka Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Madras, AIR 1959 Madras 334, it was observed that by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act the earlier notification of the Government should be deemed to continue in force even after the coming into force of new Act of 1956 . In Chief Inspector of Mines and another v. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR 1961 SC 838, while referring to the General Clauses Act, 1897, it was observed that the purpose of this Act to place in one single statute different provisions as regards interpretations of words and legal principles, which would otherwise have to be specified. separately in many different Acts and regulations. It has also been observed that the additional provision embodying the words of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, the regulations made under an old Act will have the effect as if enacted in the new Act unless the regulations made earlier are also superseded by regulations made under the reenacted provisions. In Manohar Singh and another v. Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., AIR 1981 M P. 123, it was observed ''that a notification issued under the Ordinance would continue in force and must be deemed to have been issued under Section 9(3) of the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited Act, 1977, by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act. As the provisions of Section 5A of the old Act and Section 13 of the new Act are similar, it is held that there is no legal infirmity and the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

6 Criminal Misc. No. 12516M of 1990, Satpal Bansal v. The State of Punjab also stands dismissed.