Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 437 (MP)

Ramnaresh Prasad v. State of M. P.

2000-04-27

S.S.SARAF

body2000
ORDER S.S. Saraf, J. 1. This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Order dated 25-11-1999 passed by the Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 5/99 (State v. Ramnaresh Prasad) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :-- The petitioner is facing a trial for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act'), on the basis of a challan filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Court of Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur, bearing Special Case No. 5/99 (State v. Ramnaresh Prasad). The petitioner filed an application for quashing of the proceedings of the said Special Case on the ground that the Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur who has granted permission to Shri B.K. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur has no jurisdiction to grant permission. Besides, the learned Special Judge has given no reason while granting the permission. It was also alleged by the petitioner that the Order of S.P., CBI, ACB, Jabalpur entrusting the investigation to Shri B.K. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur is also illegal as it does not contain any reasons. The learned Judge by Order dated 25-11-1999 rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 25-11-1999, the present petition has been filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The first contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur has the status of Court of Sessions while under Section 17 of the Act, it is the Magistrate First Class who has jurisdiction to grant permission to investigate the offence against the petitioner. The learned Judge has discussed this fact in detail in the impugned Order and held that he has jurisdiction to grant permission to investigate the case as being Special Judge he has jurisdiction to exercise the powers of Magistrate First Class so far as the special case is concerned. After giving a thoughtful consideration of the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am unable to agree with this contention raised by him. After giving a thoughtful consideration of the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am unable to agree with this contention raised by him. Though, the Special Judge has the status of Court of Sessions but for all procedural purposes, he is empowered to exercise all the jurisdiction of the Magistrate First Class. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Order granting permission to investigate the case is illegal as it does not contain the reasons. Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the reasons have been given in the order-sheet and therefore it cannot be said that the learned Judge has not applied his mind. A perusal of the order-sheet dated 21-11-1997 clearly establishes that the learned Judge has applied his mind while granting permission to investigate the case against the petitioner, and therefore it cannot be said that the Order passed by the learned Judge granting permission to investigate the case against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 5. The third contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Order passed by the S.P. authorising Shri B.K. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur to investigate the case against the petitioner is illegal as no reasons have been assigned by the S.P. A careful scrutiny of the entire material on record reveals that the S.P. has also applied his mind before entrusting the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur. The S.P. has written in detail the facts and thereafter registered the case and entrusted the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur. The Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud and Ors. v. State of Delhi has held as under :-- "A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial." 6. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Shri Ram Singh and Ors. that merely because the Order of the Superintendent of Police was in typed proforma that does not show the non-application of mind of the Superintendent of Police or could not be held to have been passed in a mechanical and casual manner. v. Shri Ram Singh and Ors. that merely because the Order of the Superintendent of Police was in typed proforma that does not show the non-application of mind of the Superintendent of Police or could not be held to have been passed in a mechanical and casual manner. In the present case the concerned Superintendent of Police has discussed the facts of the case and thereafter entrusted the investigation to the concerned sub-ordinate police officer. The impugned order, thus, does not appear to have been passed in a mechanical or casual manner. I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on this ground also. Besides, assuming that no reasons have been given by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Jabalpur while authorising the Sub-Inspector of Police, in view of the above observations of the Supreme Court in Rishbud's case (supra), there does not appear to be any ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that the objection has been raised by the petitioner at very late stage as the prosecution case has now been closed, the examination of accused has also been completed and the case is now fixed for defence. 7. For reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned Order passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur and therefore there is no ground to interfere in the Order passed by the learned Judge. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. The stay granted by this Court stands revoked automatically.