Judgment 1. K.S.C. Sundararajan, the petitioner herein, is the accused in Special Case No.l of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The order dated 3.8.1995 framing the charge under Sec. 13(2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as against the petitioner is challenged in this Revision. 2. The accusation in the charge is that on 28.2.1989, the petitioner was in possession of Rs. 1,66,471.18 disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he had not satisfactorily accounted for. 3. The facts are these: On the complaint of one Natarajan, against the petitioner, a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur, on 28.2.1989 at about 9.15 p.m. for having demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.500 from the said Natarajan as gratification, other than the legal remuneration for issuing a posting order in his favour to Thanjavur, a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 1989 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thanjavur. During the course of the said trap proceedings, the residence of the petitioner was searched and a cash of Rs.2,15,650 was seized. In respect of seizure of Rs.2,15,650 from his house, another case was registered in Crime No.4 of 1989 under Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 16.8.1989. In the earlier case, i.e., in Crime No.2 of 1989, charge sheet was filed for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the said Act. In that case, the petitioner was convicted on 7.9.1992 by the trial court in Special Case No.16 of 1990. This conviction was challenged under appeal before this Court in C.A.No.580 of 1992 and the same is pending. At this stage, another charge sheet which filed in respect of another transaction in which the petitioner was alleged to have demanded bribe from one Jothikumar under Sec.13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the same Crime No.2 of 1989 which was taken on file in Special Case No. 17 of 1990 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. Against this proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for quashing and the same was allowed by this Court on 19.3.1994. At this stage, the sanction was obtained from the competent authority on 1.6.1995 in respect of the seizure of the unaccounted money of Rs.2,15,650 from the house of the petitioner. Against this proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for quashing and the same was allowed by this Court on 19.3.1994. At this stage, the sanction was obtained from the competent authority on 1.6.1995 in respect of the seizure of the unaccounted money of Rs.2,15,650 from the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent filed the charge sheet on 14.7.1995. The same was taken on file by the trial court in S.C.No.1 of 1995. After this was taken on file, the trial court, issued summons to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the trial court and received copies of the charge sheet. The charge was framed against him under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the trial court by an order dated 3.8.1995 which is sought to be set aside in this revision. 4. Mr.A.Balaguru, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would put forth the following contentions: (i)The impugned order framing the charges does not contain the true details and the same contains the particulars which are both incorrect and misleading. (ii)The allegations in the charge sheet and J other materials do not make out the offence, since through the explanation, the amount seized from the petitioner was satisfactorily accounted for. (iii)The charge sheet in the present case was filed by the officer, who is the first informant, which vitiates the entire proceedings, especially, on being aggrieved with the filing of quashing application by the petitioner in respect of Special Case fro. 17 of 1989, which was ultimately quashed by the High Court on 19.3.1994 and as such, the proceedings would become invalid and would suffer from mala fide. 5. In reply, Mr.Shanmugasundaram, the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that all the above three grounds are not sound, as the case is only in the initial stage, and that, at any rate, these are all the matters to be agitated during the course of trial so that the trial court would be able to find out whether any prejudice is caused to the accused. 6. Both the counsel would cite several authorities, which we shall see later. 7. The few dates are relevant to be stated at this stage for disposal of this revision. 6. Both the counsel would cite several authorities, which we shall see later. 7. The few dates are relevant to be stated at this stage for disposal of this revision. (a) On 28.2.1989, the respondent police, on the complaint of one Natarajan, a Co-operative Sub Registrar, accusing the petitioner, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur, that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.500 as bribe for issuing a posting order in his favour of Thanjavur, arrested him while he was accepting the said sum on the same day and a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 1989 under Sec.13(lXd) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (b) The respondent also searched the house of the petitioner and seized Rs.2,15,650 which was in his possession, disportionate to his known sources of income. While the investigation was pending in Crime No.2 of 1989, the respondent reported the Director of Vigilance about the seizure of the said unaccounted money on 4.3.1989. On 12.7.1989, an authorisation was given by the authority to the respondent to register a separate case. Accordingly, on 16.8.1989, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.4 of 1989 against the petitioner under Sec. 13(1) (e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (c) On 7.9.1989, the respondent was given authorisation under Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to investigate into the said offence. While investigation in this case was going or charge sheet was filed in trap case with reference to the recovery of Rs.500 on the complaint of the said Natarajan in Special Case No. 16 of 1990 which was ended in conviction on 7.9.1992. (d) In the meantime, the respondent filed another charge sheet in Special Case No. 17 of 1990 with reference to the demand of bribe by the petitioner from one Jothikumar in the very same Crime No.2 of 1989. Therefore, on 21.12.1992, the petitioner filed a quashing application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14151 of 1992 against Special Case No. 17 of 1990. (e) In the meantime, on 11.9.1992, the respondent after finishing the investigation in Crime No.4 of 1989 regarding the possession of unaccounted money, sent a final report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption recommending for disciplinary action through the department. (e) In the meantime, on 11.9.1992, the respondent after finishing the investigation in Crime No.4 of 1989 regarding the possession of unaccounted money, sent a final report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption recommending for disciplinary action through the department. (f) By that time, the first application filed by the petitioner for return of documents and cash seized in Crime No.4 of 1989 was dismissed by the trial court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application in M.P.No.24 of 1994 before the trial court for return of the seized amount of Rs.2,15,650. This application was allowed and the cash seized from the petitioner was returned by the trial court on 21.1.1994 on his executing a bond with an undertaking that it will be produced as and when required. (g) In the meantime, on 17.9.1993, the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, despite the recommendation of the respondent-police for taking departmental action, decided to prosecute the petitioner and recommended for the sanction by sending report with regard to it. (h) At this stage, in the earlier case, since the petitioner was convicted on 7.9.1992 by the trial court, an appeal was preferred before this Court in C.A.No.580 of 1992 and the same is pending. As there was no suspension of conviction pending appeal, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.2.1994. (i) The Government on receiving the report recommending for prosecution, perused the documents, explanation and other records and granted sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner by an order dated 1.6.1995. On the basis of this sanction, the respondent filed a charge sheet on 14.7.1995, which was taken in Special Case No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. 8. Regarding the first point relating to dearth of details in the charge framed against the petitioner, I do not find any substance, as the charge framed and questions put to the accused would give sufficient details in compliance with the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. The second point relates to the absence of ingredients of the offence in the charge sheet and the other materials. 9. The second point relates to the absence of ingredients of the offence in the charge sheet and the other materials. In elaboration of this point, the learned counsel would submit that the explanations submitted by the petitioner on two different occasions would clearly show that the amount seized from the house of the petitioner was clearly accounted for and as such, the ingredient, namely, ‘not satisfactorily accounted for’ is absent and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 10. I am not able to agree with the above contention of the counsel for the petitioner also, since the prosecution case is that the promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the brother of the petitioner in favour of the persons who gave the loan were anti dated and that the report of the Nassik Press would falsify the said contention. Therefore, I cannot now decide whether the explanation by the petitioner is satisfactory or not. 11. As regards the third point, since I feel some force in the argument advanced by the petitioner, let me now go deep into the matter to decide about the same. 12. The counsel for the petitioner with very great vehemence would contend that since the respondent, who is the first informant/complainant has registered the case in Crime No.4 of 1989 suo motu on 16.8.1989 and he himself has taken up the investigation of the case and filed the charge sheet, the same is a serious illegality which vitiates the entire proceedings. 13. It is also contended that having aggrieved over the result of the quashing application filed by the petitioner which was in his favour, the respondent has filed the charge sheet, even though initially, he sent a report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption recommending only for disciplinary action and he said no objection for the return of documents and cash before the trial court. On the basis of this, the counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to quash the proceedings on the ground of mala fide as the investigation was not done in a fair and impartial manner. 14. Even according to the learned Public Prosecutor, originally, in respect of Crime No.4 of 1989, the respondent sent a report dated 11.9.1992 to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption recommending only for disciplinary action through the department and not for prosecution. 14. Even according to the learned Public Prosecutor, originally, in respect of Crime No.4 of 1989, the respondent sent a report dated 11.9.1992 to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption recommending only for disciplinary action through the department and not for prosecution. It is now stated that since the other proceeding in Special Case No. 17 of 1990 was quashed by the order of this Court, the respondent has taken up a decision to prosecute the petitioner in Crime No.4 of 1989. 15. In this context, it is to be noticed that the report recommending for disciplinary action was sent on 11.9.1992. Prior to that date, explanation dated 18.11.1991 was received from the petitioner stating that the amounts have been obtained from his brother who received the same on executing promissory notes in February, 1989 in favour of five persons and on the basis of this explanation, the promissory notes were sent to Nassik Press, in order to find out as to when the revenue stamps affixed on the promissory notes were issued. The Nassik Press sent a report on 21.2.1992 stating that the revenue stamps were printed and issued not prior to February, 1989 but issued only in the month of May, 1989. In pursuance of this report, the respondent was not satisfied with the explanation by the petitioner, but he thought it fit to recommend only for disciplinary proceedings through department and sent the report. 16. It is now stated that subsequent to the said report, second explanation was sent on 9.11.1992 by the petitioner to the respondent stating that the loan was given in February, 1989, but the promissory notes were executed only in May, 1989. This explanation was also sent to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. 17. In the meantime, the application for quashing was filed on 21.12.1991 before this Court. Though the said application was pending, even according to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent stated no objection for the return of the cash seized in Crime No.4 of 1989 on 21.9.94 before the trial court. In the meantime on 17.9.93, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption sent a requisition to the Government requesting sanction for prosecution. Only then, the proceeding in Special Case No. 17 of 1990 was quashed by this Court on 19.3.1994. 18. In the meantime on 17.9.93, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption sent a requisition to the Government requesting sanction for prosecution. Only then, the proceeding in Special Case No. 17 of 1990 was quashed by this Court on 19.3.1994. 18. Actually, at that stage, the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption requesting sanction against the petitioner was pending consideration by the Government. Ultimately, on 1.6.1995, on consideration of the materials placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction was granted for prosecuting the petitioner under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In pursuance of the sanction, the respondent filed the charge sheet on 14.7.1995. If there was grievance for the respondent over the filing of quashing application by the petitioner, there is no reason as to why the respondent did not raise any serious objection in return of the cash on 21.9.1994. Similarly, the quashing application was allowed only on 19.3.1994. Even prior to this, i.e., on 17.9.1993 itself, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption recommended for prosecution by sending a requisition to the Government for sanction for prosecution. 19. In the fact situation, on the basis of the materials placed before this Court as on date, I am not able to hold that there was any mala fide on the part of the respondent, who filed the charge sheet, in obedience to the orders of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and the Government. 20. However, the counsel for the petitioner would urge that the respondent, having been the first informant, should not have been allowed to conduct the investigation and file the charge sheet. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the decision in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994 Crl.L.J. 3988. The relevant observation is as follows: “After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in the depositions of the P.Ws.2 and 3 and in the absence of any independent corroboration such discrepancy does not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. P.W.3, Shri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartidges were recovered from the accused. We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. P.W.3, Shri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartidges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation.” 21. It shall be noted that this observation was made by the Apex Court in appreciation of the evidence of a Head Constable P.W.3 in an appeal, as against the judgment of conviction. No doubt, it is specifically mentioned that the complainant/first informant police officer should not resort to the investigation, as there may be a chance to suspect the fair and impartial investigation. So, on the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court, apart from the other reasons for not relying upon his evidence, took into consideration the aspect that the first informant who lodged the complaint, proceeded with the investigation of the case and set aside the conviction. 22. But in the instant case, the trial has not been commenced and an opportunity shall have to be given to both the parties with reference to this aspect. Only on the basis of the materials to be produced by both the parties, the trial court can come to a conclusion as to Whether the investigation was fair and impartial. 23. No doubt it is true, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption having taken the decision on 11.9.1992 to take disciplinary proceedings alone, had taken a different decision on 17.9.1993 for recommending for prosecution. This circumstance is not explained. However, I cannot now, at this stage, come to the conclusion, that because of this circumstance, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 24. As I said earlier, it is for the trial court to consider the said aspect and give a finding on that. This circumstance is not explained. However, I cannot now, at this stage, come to the conclusion, that because of this circumstance, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 24. As I said earlier, it is for the trial court to consider the said aspect and give a finding on that. Moreover, this Court in Thamilazharasan and another v. State Thamilazharasan and another v. State, 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 191 and in Aiyyakannu, INRE. Aiyyakannu, IN RE., 1991 L.W. (Crl) 534, has held that there is no legal prohibition for the first informant/complainant police officer to lay just information and he himself investigate the case and file a final report. Therefore, mere act filing F.I.R. andfiling of charge sheet by the same officer would not automatically, in my view, nullify the proceeding, unless the investigation is established to be unfair and partial. 25. In view of the above discussion, I do not propose to give any finding on this aspect at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to raise this point before the trial court a the appropriate stage by cross examining the witnesses or examining his own witnesses. As such, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner. 26. In the result, the revision is dismissed, as devoid of merits.