AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1-Lokayukta.
Petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in Chikkaballapur Lokayukta police station Crime No. 3/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13-(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the ground that the investigation is in violation of Section 157, Cr.P.C., and that FIR reached the Special Judge after the petitioner was trapped.
The learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, for respondent No. 1 Lokayukta has opposed the petition.
2A. The records disclose that the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Gowribidanur in the project known as Jala Samvardhane Yojane Sangha� coming under Small Irrigation Department. On 17.1.2013, the petitioner along with one N.L. Harish were trapped while receiving bribe amount from the complainant. In furtherance of the trap, tainted currency notes of Rs.35,000/- were recovered from this petitioner and Rs. 15,000/- from accused No. 1 during the course of investigation. This petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The said petition came to be dismissed as [ire-mature. Now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed in PCACC Case.No.7/ 2014 before the District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur. Therefore, the petitioner, who is accused No. 2 has filed this petition to quash the proceedings mainly on the ground that there is non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 157, Cr.P.C.
It is seen from the records that the complaint was registered on 17.1.2013 at 11.45 a.m. in Cr.No.3/13. The copy of the FIR produced shows that immediately after registration of the crime, the original FIR was dispatched to the Special Judge in a sealed cover through the police constable at 10.45 a.m. Thereafter, at 11.50 a.m., panchas were secured to the police station to conduct entrustment panchanama, between 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m., entrustment panchanama was drawn. The raiding party headed by Police Inspector. Lokayukta Police Station left the police station along with witnesses at 1.15 p.m. At 2.30 p.m., the accused were trapped at Travellers Bungalow, Gowribidanur. It is stated that the sealed cover containing original FIR reached Special Judge at 3.00 p.m.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the FIR could reach the Special Judge, the accused were trapped and therefore it is in violation of mandatory provision of Section 157, Cr.P.C.
Section 157 Cr.P.C. speaks that if from information received or otherwise, the officer in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence who is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of such offence. As I have already stated that the copy of the FIR produced would go to show that the FIR was dispatched from the police station at 11.45 a.m. on 17.1.2013 as soon as Crime No. 3/2013 came to be registered and therefore do not see violation of Section 157, Cr.RC. as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The Division Bench decision of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.P.No. 15941/2012 dated 5.2.2013 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The Division Bench of this Court has considered whether the Investigating Officer should first register the FIR and thereupon embark upon investigation. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that FIR came to be registered at about 11.45 p.m. and thereafter the investigation commenced. Needless to say that once the FIR is dispatched immediately after registration of the crime, mandate of Section 157, Cr.RC. is complied. There is no law or procedure which say that unless the FIR reaches the Magistrate, investigation should not commence. If there is delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate or the Judge as the case may be, it is for the prosecution to explain the delay during the course of trial. Even if it is presumed for a while that the FIR was dispatched at 11.45 a.m. immediately after registration of the FIR and it reached the Special Judge at 3.00 p.m, that is not a ground to quash the proceedings. The petition is devoid of merit and hence, it is dismissed.