AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagmohan Das, J.—In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge sheet and the proceedings in Special Case No. 20/05 pending on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore.
Petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar in the Government of Karnataka. On 08.03.2000, the respondent- Lokayuktha Police conducted a search on the resident of petitioner and registered a case in Crime No. 9/2000 for the offences punishable u/s 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Initially, the investigation was entrusted to a Deputy Superintendent of Police by name Sri. A.L. Desai vide order dated 07.03.2000. On transfer of the investigation Officer Sri. A.L. Desai, the further investigation was entrusted to another Deputy Superintendent of Police by name Sri. S.B. Yarazarvi vide order dated 26.12.2000. Thereafter, on transfer of the Sri. S.B. Yarazarvi, the further investigation was entrusted to Sri. D.S. Rajendra a Police inspector vide order dated 18.12.2002. The respondent-Police after completing the investigation filed a charge sheet on 08.03.2005 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in C.C. No. 2/05. Aggrieved by the filing of charge sheet and initiation of proceedings in C.C. No. 2/05, the petitioner is before this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
Sri. M.S. Bagawat learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 18.12.2002 entrusting the further investigation in the matter to Sri. D.S. Rajendra Police Inspector is not a reasoned order and the same is contrary to the law declared by this Court and the Apex Court. He further contends that there is a delay of more than 5 years in filing the charge sheet by the respondent-Police and the same has resulted in untold misery, mental-torture and the same has caused prejudice. After filing charge-sheet on 08.03.2005 and during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner retired from service and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
1) The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mubarak Ali,
2) Munna Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
3) State of Karnataka v. B. Narayana Reddy 2002 (2) KLJ 80
4) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V. Pavithran,
5) P.A. Vijayan Vs. State of Karnataka,
6) State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,
7) Raj Deo Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar,
8) Criminal Petition No. 2071/2000 disposed on 24.02.2006 An unreported judgment in.
Per contra Sri. P.M. Nawaz learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the Government of Karnataka vide Notification dated 06.02.1991 generally authorised all the Inspector of Police, Office of Karnataka Lokayuktha are empowered u/s 17 of the Prevention of corruption Act for taking up investigation. Further, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha vide his order dated 18.12.2002 entrusted the further investigation of the offence u/s 13(1)(e) of the Act by reasoned order to the Inspector of Police. Therefore, he contends that there is no illegality or error in the matter of authorisation of investigation to the inspector of police. He further contends that in the statement of objections filed before this Court, the respondent-Police has explained in para 3 and 4 the circumstances that led to the delay in filing the charge sheet. He contends that in the facts and circumstances of this Case there is no inordinate delay on the part of the respondent-Police in filing the charge sheet. He contends that in the facts and circumstances of this case there is no inordinate delay on the part of the respondent-Police in filing the charge sheet. Reliance is placed on the following decisions.
1) State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh,
2) Mahavir Prasad Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.,
3) T.K. Sankaran Kutty Vs. State of Kerala and Another,
4)
5) AIR 2004 SCW 1342
Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced on both the side, the following two questions will arise for my consideration:
Whether the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore entrusting the investigation to a Inspector of Police is a reasoned order?
Whether there is a inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet by the respondent-Police and on that ground the proceedings are liable to be quashed?
On point No. 1:
It is not in dispute that initially an officer by name Sri. A.L. Desai, the Deputy Superintendent of Police commenced the investigation. On transfer of this I.O. the further investigation was entrusted to another Deputy Superintendent of Police by name Sri. S.B. Yarazarvi. On transfer of this I.O. Sri. S.B. Yarazarvi, the further investigation was entrusted to one Sri. D.S. Rajendra a Police Inspector of the Lokayuktha vide order dated 18.12.2002.
Section 17 of the Act specifies person to whom the investigation can be authorised and the same reads as under:
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 the 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 Sub-section (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 therefore 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 a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
A reading of Section 17 specifies that not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of equivalent rank shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of Magistrate. The first proviso to Section 17 further specifies that the State Government by a general or special order authorised an Inspector of Police to investigate the offence under the Act. The second proviso further specifies that in the event of investigation of an offence u/s 13(1)(e) of the Act is to be done by an officer only by an order, by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the offence involved is u/s 13(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary that there shall be a general or special order by the State Government authorising a person to investigate. In addition to that, having regard to the offence involved, there shall also be an authorisation from the Superintendent of Police. The Government of Karnataka vide notification dated 06.02.1991 bearing No. HD 286 PEG - 90 generally authorised the Inspector of Police of Lokayuktha to investigate the matters. Further, the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 18.12.2002 authorised the Inspector of Police to investigate the matter against the petitioner. Therefore, on the face of it, the Inspector of Police who investigated the matter against the petitioner is authorised by the State Government and also the Superintendent of Police and the same is in compliance of the requirement u/s 17 of the Act.
The Supreme Court in Bhajanlal''s case, P.V. Pavithran''s case and this Court in B. Narayana Reddy''s case and P.A. Vijayan''s case held that the entrustment order by the Superintendent of Police under the Proviso to Section 17 of the Act shall be a reasoned order. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that there is an order of entrustment dated 18-12-2002 and the same reads as under:-
Preamble;
Shri.S.B.Yarazarvi, Dy. Supdt. of Police, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore was authorised to continue the investigation of this case vide proceedings cited at reference (1) above. Consequent to his transfer, he was relived from this organisation.
Later, Shri. D.S. Rajendra, is promoted as Police Inspector and transferred to Lokayukta Organisation and he reported for duty in the Lokayuktha. As per the O.M. No. LOK/PW/EST (P)/81/2002-03 dtd. 16.11.2002 of the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha, he is posted to the existing vacancy in the City Division. It is, therefore, necessary for me to authorise Shri. D.S. Rajendra, Police Inspector, to take up further investigation of this case for the reasons noted as under:
In the Govt. Notifications referred to above, the Police Inspectors of Karnataka Lokayuktha have been specially authorised to investigate cases registered u/s 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988.
The Dy. Supdts. of Police working in the City Division are found busy in finalising other cases registered u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and also enquiries referred by the Hon''ble Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha.
Shri. D.S. Rajendra, Police Inspector, has been trained in the investigation of such cases, he has got sufficient knowledge to handle such cases. Hence the following:
Order No. LOK/INV (G)/CITY/CR. 0/2000 DTD:18.12.2002.
In exercise of the powers conferred on me, by the proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act, 1988, I, G. Ramesh, Supdt. Of Police, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, hereby authorise Shri. D.S. Rajendra, Police Inspector, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore to continue the investigation of the case i.e., LAC, Cr. 9/2000 registered u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Shri. D. Krishnappa, formerly Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar, Bangalore.
A reading of the authorisation of Superintendent of Police dated 18.12.2002 specifies that Sri. S.B. Yarazarvi a Deputy Superintendent of Police who was investigating the matter was transferred from Lokayuktha and he was relived from duty. At the same time, D.S. Rajendra a Police Inspector was promoted and transferred to Lokayuktha organisation. It further specifies that the Deputy Superintendent of Police working in the City Division are found busy in finalising other cases registered u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Act and also enquires referred by Hon''ble Lokayuktha and Upa-Lokayuktha. It also specifies that Sri. D.S. Rajendra Police Inspector has been trained in the investigation of such cases and he has got sufficient knowledge to handle such cases. For these reasons specified in the order dated 18.12.2002, the further investigation was entrusted to a Police Inspector. Therefore, the order of entrustment dated 18.12.2002 is a reasoned order and the same is in accordance with law declared by the Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions referred to above. Therefore, I answer point No. 1 in negative.
On point No. 2
This Court in the case of P.A. Vijayan Vs. State of Karnataka, , held as under:
Therefore, what transpires from the afore stated authoritative pronouncements of Supreme Court is that, the question whether the criminal proceedings against the accused has to be quashed or not depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, the volume of evidence collected by the IO and the nature and gravity of the offence for which the accused stands charged. There must be nexus between the delay and these facts. In the instant case, as has been already indicated above, it is not the case of he investigating officer made out in his affidavit that the delay was on account of the collection of any bulky evidence in support of the charge against the accused. There is no any mention in his entire affidavit about the nature of material evidence and its collection in course of investigation and any period involved. Nor is it his case that any part of the evidence, documentary or otherwise, collected during investigation was not readily available and was beyond his reach at particular stage of investigation. On the other hand, the manner in which the investigating agency has conducted itself in the instant case calls for reprobation. The charge sheet has been laid by it subsequent to the filing of the petition to save its own face from any serious censor by the court. The petitioner has admittedly retired from service long before filing of the charge sheet. The lethargy and utterly indifferent attitude displayed by the agency in the matter of conduct and conclusion of investigation and submission of the charge sheet has, undoubtedly resulted in untold misery, mental torture for over 7 years and in grave prejudice to the petitioner-accused in effective defence of the case. Therefore, without more, there being absolutely no legal justification whatever for such unreasonably long delay in submission of the final report i.e., charge sheet, to the Court by the investigating police, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will have to be quashed in the ends of justice.
Following the law declared by this Court in P.A. Vijayan''s case, the learned Single Judge in the case of Srinivas B. v. Superintendent of Police in Crl. P. No. 2071/2000, disposed of on 24.2.2006, quashed the criminal proceedings on the question of delay and reserved liberty to the respondents/police to take a decision in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Jagadish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. AIR 2004 SCW 1342 held that the delay by itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The reasons for the delay and seriousness of the offence ought to be looked into. Again the Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka held at para 13 as under:
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that offence was alleged to have been committed in 1986, now after lapse of almost 19 years would it be advisable to proceed with the matter. It is a matter of corruption and we cannot give any latitude in such matters.
Keeping the law declared by the Apex Court and this Court in the decisions referred to above, it is required to examine the facts situation in the present case. The undisputed facts are that on 8.3.2000, the respondents-police searched the house of the petitioner and registered criminal case u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 8.3.2005, the chargesheet came to be filed. On the face of it, there is a delay of five years in filing the chargesheet. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that this delay of five years is a long period and there is no acceptable explanation for this delay. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contend that in paras 3 and 4 of the objection statement filed before this Court, the respondent-police have explained the delay in filing the chargesheet. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the explanation of the respondents-police, an opportunity must be provided to them to justify their explanation. This is a case of corruption investigated for the offence under Sections 13(1)(e) of the Act. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence involved and the explanations of the respondents, it is not proper for the Court to quash the proceedings at this time on ground of delay. Further, it is not a case where there is a delay without there being no explanation. An opportunity must be provided for the respondents to explain the delay. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is answered in negative.
For the reasons stated above, I find no justifiable ground to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings before the trial Court. Keeping in view that the matter is pending from the year 2000 and that we are in 2008 and also the fact that the petitioner has retired from service, the City Civil and Sessions Judge, before whom the proceedings are pending in C.C. No. 2/2000 is hereby directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the case in accordance with law within a time frame of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.