1990 (11) TMI 386 - SC - Indian Laws

The Government order authorised the Inspector General of Police to investigate only the offences failing under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the SHO who has taken up the investigation of the offences inclusive of those under Section 161 and 165 IPC is not at all clothed with any authority to investigate these two offences, registered under the IPC, apart from the offence under Section 5(2) of the Act. However, as the question relating to the legal authority of the SHO is raised even at the initial stage, it would be proper and also desirable that the investigation, if at all to be proceeded with in the opinion of the State Government, should proceed only on the basis of a valid order in strict compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 5A(1).

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Rule of Law and Supremacy of Law
2. Corruption and Its Impact on Democracy
3. False and Frivolous Accusations
4. Legal Principles Governing Registration of Cognizable Offences
5. Judicial Review of Police Investigations
6. Validity of Investigation by Non-Designated Officers
7. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rule of Law and Supremacy of Law:

The judgment emphasizes the principle that in a democratic polity based on the 'Rule of Law,' the law is supreme. It states, "Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law." This principle is reiterated to underline that no one, regardless of their status or power, is above the law.

2. Corruption and Its Impact on Democracy:

The judgment discusses the pervasive nature of corruption, stating that it poses a significant threat to the welfare of society and the foundations of democracy. It emphasizes that "the canker of venality, if not fought against on all fronts and at all levels, checked and eradicated, will destabilize and debilitate the very foundations of democracy."

3. False and Frivolous Accusations:

The judgment acknowledges the issue of false and frivolous accusations of corruption, which can be made maliciously to harm an adversary. It states, "One should also be alive to cases where false and frivolous accusations of corruption are maliciously made against an adversary exposing him to social ridicule and oblique with an ulterior motive."

4. Legal Principles Governing Registration of Cognizable Offences:

The judgment elaborates on the legal mandate under Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for registering a cognizable offence. It states, "If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form."

5. Judicial Review of Police Investigations:

The judgment discusses the limited scope of judicial review over police investigations. It states, "The field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the Courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation."

6. Validity of Investigation by Non-Designated Officers:

The judgment addresses the issue of investigation by non-designated officers under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It states, "Section 5A of the Act is mandatory and not directory and the investigation conducted in violation thereof bears the stamp of illegality." The court found that the third appellant (SHO) was not clothed with the requisite legal authority to investigate the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act.

7. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:

The judgment outlines the categories of cases where the High Court can exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings. It states, "The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases." The court found that the allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence, justifying the registration of a case and an investigation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the First Information Report (FIR) but quashed the commencement and entire investigation done so far due to the lack of valid legal authority of the investigating officer. The court granted liberty to the State Government to direct an investigation afresh through a competent police officer empowered with valid legal authority in strict compliance with Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.