AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran , J.—The petitioners in both the above Crl.O.Ps. who are accused in C.C.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge/II Special Judge Chennai, seek to call for the records in the said case and to quash the same for non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under the second proviso to Section 17 of the prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act).
The petitioners are facing trial for the alleged offences punishable u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act with regard to their alleged criminal misconduct during the check period 18.5.1993 to 9.5.1996, registered in Crime No.4/AC/96 on the file of the respondents herein.
It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras by his proceedings dated 20.8.1996. passed an order as contemplated under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act. which reads as follows:
Proceedings of the Superintendent of police. Southern Range. Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras.
present: Thiru S. Thanikodi, I.P.S., No. RC 43/96/MISC/HO dated: 20.8.1996
Sub: Order under second proviso to section 17 of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988.
In exercise of the powers conferred under the second proviso to Section 17 of the prevention of Corruption Act. 19X8 (Act 49 of 1988), Thiru S. Thanikodi. I.P.S. Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras hereby order investigation in the case in Cr.No.4/AC796 UP u/s 13(2) read with 13(l)(e) of the prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Act 49 of 1988) against Thiru. K. Ponnusamy, formerly Minister for Education.
Sd/-
Superintendent of police. Southern Range. Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras.
To
Thiru. N. Adiyapatham, Dy. Superintendent of police. Vigilance & Anti- Corruption. Trichy Detachment.
By a separate proceedings dated 20.8.1996, the Superintendent of police. Southern Range Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Madras-6, after satisfying himself that it is necessary to inspect any banker''s book, authorised the Deputy Superintendent of police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Tiruchirapalli. u/s 18 of the P.C. Act to inspect the banker''s books.
Accordingly, the respondent investigated into the alleged offences said to have been committed by the petitioners and filed a report before the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chennai, on 9.8.1998, enclosing all the relevant materials relied upon therein. Annexure - II to the report contains the list of documents relied upon in the report and Sl.Nos.80 and 81 of the Annexure - II, which reads as follows :-
80.Authorisation Irs. dated 20.8.96 given u/s 17 and 18 of P.C. Act given to Tr. N. Aduiyapatham, DSP V&AC, Trichy (Already in Court).
Authorisation lr. dated 1.8.97 of I.G. of Police, SIC-II given to Tr. S. Rajendran. Inspr. of Police V&AC, Tnchy (already in Court).
While acknowledging the report, the Head Clerk of the Court has made the following endorsement
Received the above records except Item Nos.6(i) 51 to 54. 64,80 and 81.
Sd/-, 9.7.98 Head Clerk.
The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6158 of 2000 filed in CrI.M.P.No.297 of 1999 before the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chennai. to direct the respondents therein to produce the files pertaining to the authorisation accorded "to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Adiyapatham and Inspector of Police Mr. Rajendran under sections 17 and 18 of the P.C. Act respectively.
The respondents, however, contended that the authorisation letters were sent to the competent Court during the investigation by post. As the said authorisation letters were not available in the Court, the true copies of the above authorisation letters were filed in the Court on 18.3.1999
The learned XII Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chennai dismissed Crl.M.P. No.297 of 1999 by order dated 10.5.199. holding that the production of the files relating to the said authorisation letters dated 20.8.1996 is neither necessary nor desirable for the purpose of trial. The said order dated 10.5.1999 was confirmed by this Court by order dated 14.7.1999 in Crl.R.C.No.654 of 1999. and thereafter, by the Apex Court in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.2017 of 1999 but with a liberty to establish the absence of due authorisation in the course of trial."
Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1415 and 1417 of 1999 in C.C.No.3 of 1998 to issue summons to (1) Thiru Ponmravian. Deputy Superintendent of police. Special Investigation Unit, Sp. Branch, C.1.D.29, Sait Colony, Gandhi Nagar Ponnagar, Trichy-1 (2) Thiru N. Adiyapatham, Retired DSP. V& AC H.Qrs., Southern Range. Chennai-6. (3)Thiru S. Rajendran. Inspector of police, formerly at Trichy and now at Nagapattinam; and (4) Thiru R.V. Gopalan, Inspector General of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai-600 006 for their appearance and examination as witnesses to prove that the order dated 20.8.1996 under the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC. Act and the authorisation letter dated 20.8.19% u/s 18 of the PC. Act were not in existence. The respondents opposed Crl.M.P.No.1415 and 1417 of 1999 on the ground that the same were premature. The learned XII Additional Sessions Judge/II Special Judge, Chennai. by order dated 29.10.1999, accepted the objection raised by the respondent and dismissed Crl.M.P.Nos.1415 and 1417 of 1999 as the petitioners could establish the absence of the due authorisation during the trial, as observed by the Apex Court in the order dated 14.9 1997 made in S.L.P.(Crl) No.2017 of 1999.
Thus the trial commenced.
Thiru S. Thanikodi, Superintendent of police. Southern Range, Vigilance arid Anti Corruption. Madras, was examined as PW1 on 10.11.1999 and in the light of the deposition of PW1. the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 1998. Hence, the above Crl.O.Ps.
13.1. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends:
that the averments mentioned in Document Nos.80 and 81. namely, the authorisation letter dated 20.8.1999 issued under the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC. Act and the authorisation letter dated 20.8.1996 issued u/s 18 of the P.C. Act were not enclosed along with the report filed on 9.7.1998. and therefore, the same were not in existence in the eye of law as on 9.7.1998. even though the true copy of the same were filed along with the counter affidavit on 18.3.1999:
that consequently, the very initiation of the investigation/criminal proceedings from 20.8.1996 to 18.3.1999 is a nullity, and therefore, the same is illegal; and that as there was ho reference to the offence alleged to have been committed u/s 13(l)(e) in the authorisation letter issued u/s 18 of the P.C. Act. it has to be presumed that there was no authorisation under the second proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act and therefore the investigation as well as the entire proceedings initiated thereon against petitioners are liable to be quashed for want of valid authorisation under sections 17 and 18 of the P.C. Act, which are mandatory and intended to protect the petitioners from undue harassment.
In this regard. Mr. R. Thiagarajan. learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, relied on the following decisions:
i) H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Delhi,
(ii) The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mubarak Ali,
(iii) East India Commercial Co. Ltd.,Calcutta and Another Vs. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta,
(v) Sailendaranath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1968 SC 1292);
(v)Jai Narain v. Bulaqi Das (AIR 1969 Sab 504)
(vii State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,
(viii)Suresh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P ( I 1994 CCR 397); and
(ix) State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh,
Per contra. Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram. learned Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on the decision in Amar Chand Agarwalla Vs. Shanti Bose and Another, etc., , took a preliminary objection:
that where the trial had already commenced and the prosecution witnesses were examined, the petitioner could not seek to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge/II Special Judge. Chennai:
that the second proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act contemplates only an order from the Superintendent of police to his Subordinate police officer and such an order could not be construed as either an authorisation or a decision, requiring him to record reasons for passing such an order:
that where the original copy of the proceedings dated 208.1996 was either destroyed or lost, the true copy of the original is admissible in law and the same could be relied as a secondary evidence u/s 65 read with section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act;
that the mere absence of reference to Section 13(l)(e) in the authorisation letter dated 20.8.1996 issued u/s 18 of the P.C. Act. would not in any way, render the order dated 20.8.1996 issued under the second proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act. either as illegal or irregular;
that merely because the order dated 20.8.1996 made under the second proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act does not disclose any reason, the same could not be wiped out. and hence, the proceedings still survives for continuation and disposal of the same in accordance in law. from the time of framing a charge, as held in P. Nallammal etc., v. State eta, Reported in 1999 (1) L. W.(CrL)155; and that the procedural delays and technicalities of law-should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the P.C. Act as held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ramsingh (JT 2001 (1) SC 518).
I have bestowed my careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
I. The vital issues that aries for my consideration in the above Cr.O.Ps. are i)Whether the investigation initiated by the respondent against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable u/s 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act, suffers for want of compliance of the second proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act. and (ii)Consequently, whether the criminal proceedings initiated and pending against the petitioners could be quashed by this Court by exercising the powers conferred under second 482, Cr.P.C.
Before going into the above issues, this Court expressed that it may not be desirable to go into the merits and demerits relating to the compliance of the second proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act in the present proceedings initiated u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as any finding of this Court on the above issues, in the light of the materials placed and the interpretation of the relevant provisions, would be binding on both the parties and the trial Court would be burdened with such finding and as a result, the petitioners would not be entitled to raise such contentions, before the trial court once again. But. Mr. R. Thiagarajan learned senior counsel for the petitioners expressed that his clients are willing to take any such risk. Hence. I am obliged to go into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties and pass the following order:.
In this regard. I am obliged to refer to Sections 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. which read as follows:
Section 17:
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 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 or 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 Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, be 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 than an offence referred to in clause (2) 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.
Section 18:
Power to inspect bankers'' books - If from information received or otherwise, a police officer has reason to suspect the Commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate u/s 17 and considers that for the purpose of investigation or inquiry into such offence it is necessary to inspect any bankers" books, then notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force he may inspect any banker''s books in so for as they relate to the accounts of the persons suspected to have committed that offence or of any other person suspected to be holding money on behalf of such person, and the bank concerned shall be bound to assist the police officer in the exercise of his powers under this Section;
Provide that no power under this Section in relation to the accounts of any person shall be exercised by a police officer below the rank of a Superintendent of police, unless he is specially authorised in this behalf by a police officer or above the rank of a Superintendent of police.
While Section 17 prescribes the person authorised to investigate the offences punishable under this Act. Section 18 empowers the person authorised therein to inspect the banker''s book. Both the Sections are intended, apparently, to provide safeguards to the public servants to protect themselves from undue harassment by the investigating officers, as observed by the Apex Court in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Delhi,
Both the provisions, namely, sections 17 and 18 thus prescribes the persons authorised for the respective investigations, based on their assured status and rank. The investigation by persons of assured status and rank would implicitly provide an additional assurance and guarantee to the bona fide of the investigation, as it is self-evident that the officers of the respective status and rank would not. ordinarily, surrender their respective discretion to subordinates either without sufficient reasons or by overlooking the relevant materials made available to the officers of such assured status and rank. Such statutory safeguard must be strictly complied with to provide guarantee against frivolous and vexatious prosecution and any failure to provide such safeguard is entitled to be raised at the earlier stage of trial, as held in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mubarak Ali,
Sections 17 and 18 of the PC. Act, therefore, require that the investigation should be made by an officer of an assured status and rank or with his order passed bona fide to his subordinates to investigate into the offence, punished under the P.C. Act. Accordingly, the offence punishable u/s 13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act shall not be investigated without the order of the police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
That apart, the investigation by such officers of assured status and rank, as contemplated under sections 17 and 18, certainly, as observed by the Apex Court in Sailaendaranath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1968 SC 1292) would prevent the investigation in a casual manner.
Even though Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contends that since the orders made under the second proviso to section 17 as well as the authorisation made u/s 18 of the P.C. Act were not filed along with the report as per the endorsement of the Head clerk dated 9.7.98, in my considered opinion, that itself would not be sufficient to hold that there was no order at all in the eye of law, because Sl.Nos.80 and 81 of the annexure enclosed with the report, read as follows:
Authorisation Irs. dt.20.8.96 given u/s 17 and 18 of P.C. Act given to Tr. N. Audiyapatham, DSP, V& AC, Trichy (Already in Court).
81.Authorisation Ir. dt: 1.8.97 of I.G. of Police, SIC-II given to Tr. S. Rajendran, Inspr. of Police. V & AC. Tnchy (Already in Court).
It may be seen, as per Sl.Nos.8() and 81 in the annexure to the report, that the respondent had specifically stated that the said copies were "already in the court. Therefore, investigation initiated as well as the criminal proceedings pending therein cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the order dated 20.8.1996 made under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act and the authorisation letter dated 20.8.1996 made u/s 18 of the P.C. Act were not sent along with the report, as per the endorsement of the Head Clerk dated 9.7.1998.
In this regard, I am obliged to refer to the F.1.R. dated 20.8.1996 which disclosed that PW 1 Mr. Thanikodi, I.P.S. Superintendent of Police. Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras, himself is the complainant/informant, wherein, he had stated as follows:
The above information discloses that the accused is in possession of properties and pecuniary resources which are far beyond his known source of income, and for which he has to satisfactorily account. The offence u/s 13(2) read with 13(l)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is disclosed against him. The information requires a detailed probe.
I am therefore registering a case in Cr.No.4 AC/96 HQ against the accused for the purpose of taking up investigation. sd/-20.8.1996.
Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Mad.
That apart, in the column against "Action taken" in the F.1.R. it is recorded as follows:-
Since the above report reveals commission of offences) u/s as mentioned in Item No.2, registered the case and directed Tr. N. Adiyapatnam Rank, D.S.P. V & A.C., Trichy, to take up the investigation.
F.1.R. read over to the complainant/informant admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant/Informant free of cost.
Referring to the F.1.R. dated 20.8.196. Thiru Thanikodi, Superintendent of Police. Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Madras, who has been examined as PW1 on 10.11.1999, deposed that he himself was the informant/complainant in the said F.1.R. lodged against the petitioner herein for the alleged offences punishable u/s 13(l)(e) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act. He had further deposed that the original copy of the proceedings dated 20.8.1996 made under the second provision to section 17 of the PC. Act was handed over to the investigating officer and a true copy of the said proceedings dated 20.8.1996 was alone sent to the special court, by post, and by order dated 20.8.1996. as contemplated under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act. he himself had directed Mr. Adiyapatnam, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Vigilance & Anti-Corruption. Trichy, to investigate into the offence punishable u/s 13( l)(e). said to have been committed by the petitioners.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, a copy of the original orders of even number dated 20.8.1996, which were made available to the court on 18-3-1999. are admissible in law and could be relied upon as a secondary evidence u/s 65 read with section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. as the original order dated 20 8.1996 is either destroyed or lost. The position would be totally different if the true copies of the orders of even number dated 20.8.1996 were not made available to the court at all. Therefore. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the orders of even number dated 20.8.1996 are not in existence. Hence, the decision in A. Gopalakrishna v. State (1962 91 Cri.L.J. 66 is not applicable to the facts of this case. as. in the said case, the order granting the permission in question was not marked as exhibit at all.
Again, two ancillary issues arise for my consideration:
i). Whether the order dated 20.8.1996 made under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act is not in existence, as the authorisation dated 20.8.1996 made u/s 17 of the P.C. Act. does not refer the offence punishable u/s 13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act said to have been committed by the petitioner;
ii) Whether the order dated 20.8.1996 made under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act is vitiated for want of reasons.
Ancillary Issue No.(i):
Whether the order dated 20.8.1996 made under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act is not in existence as the authorisation dated 20.8.1996 made u/s 13 of the P.C. Act. does not refer to the offence punishable u/s 13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act said to have been committed by the petitioners.
The scope and ambit of the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act is. for a larger purpose, to mandate that the investigation should be done by an officer of assured status and rank, implicit in order to provide additional assurance and guarantee to the bone fide of the investigation. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, while passing an order under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act directing his subordinate officer to investigate into the alleged offence punishable u/s 13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act, is expected to exercise such power based on sufficient reasons without overlooking, the relevant materials made available to him. Whereas, the scope and ambit of authorisation required u/s 18 of the P.C. Act is only for a limited purpose, namely, to inspect the banker''s book in so far as they relate to the accounts of the persons suspected to have committed that offence, which may be investigated u/s 17 of the P.C. Act or any other person suspected to be holding money on behalf of such person, and take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries therefrom. Therefore, the absence of reference to the offence punishable u/s 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act in the authorisation letter dated 20.8.19% made u/s 18 of the P.C. Act. will not. in any way, either lead to the conclusion that there was no order under the second proviso to second 17 of the P.C. Act at all, or that the order made under the second proviso to section 17 of the PC. Act. is deemed to be not in existence.
1. Ancillary Issue No. (ii):
Whether the order dated 20.8.19% made under the second proviso to section 17 of the PC. Act vitiates for want of reasons.
With regard to the next Ancillary issue, namely. Mr. R. Thiagarajan. learned senior counsel for the petitioners, strongly relying on the decision in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, contends that the said order is illegal, and the same, on the face of it. does not disclose the reasons. But. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, because, in Bhajan Lal case, the Superintendent of Police directed the Station House officer (SHO) to investigate the matter of receipt of the complaint from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and entrusted the investigation to the State House Officer (SHO) without disclosing the reasons for making the order. It is under such circumstances, the Apex Court found that the Superintendent of Police seems to have exhibited some over-enthusiasm, presumably in order to please some ones. But. the facts of the instant case is different, as the Superintendent of Police himself is the complainant/informant, and that apart, in the FIR. Against the column "action taken" it is recorded as follows:
Since the above report reveals commission of offence(s) u/s as mentioned in Item No.2. registered the case and directed Tr. N. Adryapatham Rank. DSP. V & AC. Tnchy, to take up the investigation.
F.1.R. read over to the complainant/informant admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant/Informant free of cost" Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under the second proviso to section 17 of the PC Act is not based on sufficient reasons and relevant materials made available to him.
30.2. That apart in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, . the complaint was received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the directions were given to station House Officer (SHO) to investigate into the matter where, the Superintendent of Police had no occasion to go into the materials available to him to satisfy himself for ordering an investigation by the Station House Officer (SHO) But. in the instant case, the Superintendent of Police. Southern Range. Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Madras, himself is the complainant/informant, who. after satisfying himself in the light of the materials made available to him. found it reasonable and ordered the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Vigilance & Anti-Corruption. Trichy to investigate into the matter, and therefore. I do not find any substance in the grievance of the petitioners that the order made under the second proviso to section 17 of the PC Act is vitiated for want of reasons, nor in the contention that there was no investigation in the eye of law As rightly pointed out by Mr. Shanmugasundaram. learned Public Prosecutor, the ratio laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, holding that the order passed without disclosing the reasons, on the face of it. is bad in law. is distinguishable, as observed by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh, . Hence, the reliance placed on the ratio laid down in Suresh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. 1(1994) CCR 397) that the investigation made by an officer without proper order by the Superintendent of Police in compliance of the second proviso to section 17 of the PC. Act is illegal, is not applicable to the facts of this case In any event, the deposition of PW1. if read with the "action taken" on the F.1.R. lodged by him on 20.X. 1996. referred to above, clearly spells out the reasons for passing the order dated 20.8.1996 under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act. I am therefore, unable to accept the contentions of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that the order dated 20.8.1996 passed under the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C. Act vitiates for non-disclosure of sufficient reasons and that the same is not in existence in the eye of law.
30.3. Both the above ancillary issue are answered accordingly.
Consequently, the ratio laid down in East India Commercial Co. Ltd.,Calcutta and Another Vs. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, that the illegality in initiating the proceedings cannot be ignored, as the same would render the entire proceedings, invalid and without jurisdiction, also cannot improve the case, of the petitioners.
32.1. That apart, the Apex Court in H.N. Rishhud v. State of Delhi (AIR 1995 SC 196), has observed that where no prejudice was pleaded, much less established, the illegality committed in the course of an investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance of a case is proceeded to termination, the validity of the proceeding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.
Following the said ratio laid down in H.N. Rishhud v. State of Delhi (AIR 1995 SC 196), Mr. R. Balasuhramanian, J. in P. Nallamma Etc. v. State Etc., reported in 1999 (1) L.W.(Cri), 155, held that the mere lack of reasons, on the face of it. in the order made under the second proviso to section 17 of the PC. Act. itself, would not vitiate the entire proceedings as without jurisdiction, and therefore, such proceedings, initiated thereon would survive for continuation and disposal of the same in accordance with law from the time of framing the charge
33.1. Moreover, applying the principles laid down inV State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh, . I do not see any reason or justification to construe the second proviso to section 17 of the P.C Act liberally in favour of the petitioners/accused and to quash the consequential proceedings pending against the petitioners/accused in the proceedings initiated u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as it would otherwise preempt or about the proceedings initiated in the public interest to curb the illegality and corrupt practice of the public officers.
33.2. This court, rather, cannot ignore that it is impermissible to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider the effect of non-compliance of mandatory provision of law and that in cases of economic offences or offences involving moral turpitude or crimes of grave nature, greater circumspection, care and caution must be borne in mind, while exercising the inherent powers conferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C. As hold in State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand (1996 SCC (Cri)210.
In any event, applying the ratio laid won in Amar Chand Agarwalla Vs. Shanti Bose and Another, etc., since the witnesses were examined and evidences were recorded, it may not be proper for this court to quash the investigation and the consequential proceedings at this state, and therefore, the only proper course is to allow the proceedings to go on before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/II Special Judge. Chennai, and to enable him to give his logical conclusion, one way or the other, but not to interfere with such proceedings at this stage, by exercising the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
For all these reasons. I do not find any substance or merit to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge/II Special Judge, Chennai. for non-compliance of the procedure contemplated u/s 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Hence, the above Crl.O.Ps. fail, and therefore, they are dismissed however without costs. Consequently, the connected CRL.M.Ps. are also dismissed.