C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE common questions of fact and law arise in these two petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) 1st respondent, who is common in both the petitions, filed a complaint before the principal Special Judge for Special Police establishment (SPE) and Anti Corruption bureau (ACB) Cases, Hyderabad against the petitioners and fifteen others, with a prayer to direct an investigation into offences under section 13 (1) (d) (ii) and (iii) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) and sections 120-B and 409 IPC against them. ( 3 ) THE allegations, in brief, therein are andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation limited (APBCL), which has monopoly over wholesale trade of liquor in Andhra Pradesh as per Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Wholesale Trade and distribution and Retail Trade in Indian liquor, Foreign Liquor, Wine and Beer) Act, 1993, procures various types of liquor and beer directly from the local distilleries on a rate contract basis and supplies the same to the retailers for a profit. To ensure supply of liquor and beer at a reasonable price to consumers, APBCL in its tender document for the excise years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 laid down a condition as clause 2. 7, which reads:"the tenderers shall quote the prices of their products on competitive basis. It shall be open to the Corporation to conduct negotiations with any or all tenderers, if necessary. The tenderers shall ensure that the basic rates quoted by them for their products should not be higher than the rates quoted for supply of the same brands to the other States. The tenderer shall furnish the rates at which their brands are being supplied to TASMAC/kbcl/msil with the details of basic, excise duty, sales tax given in the Annexure V. While finalizing the contracts with the distilleries, officials of APBCL and other public servants, ignoring the said clause, favoured certain big distilleries and allowed them to sell their products at prices higher than the neighbouring States in Andhra pradesh. APBCL purchased liquor worth rs. 1,996. 55 crores during 1997-98 and up to july 1999 from A-9, A-15 and A-17 by paying double the price for which those products are sold in Tamil Nadu. In fact, A-6 (petitioner in Crl. APBCL purchased liquor worth rs. 1,996. 55 crores during 1997-98 and up to july 1999 from A-9, A-15 and A-17 by paying double the price for which those products are sold in Tamil Nadu. In fact, A-6 (petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5832 of 2003), who happens to be the Ex-Managing Director of APBCL, admitted in his counter-affidavit in W. P. No. 11581 of 2000 that APBCL wascompelled to pay higher prices to the distilleries as per the direction dated 18-06-1999 given by the revenue Secretary, in reply to the letter by apbcl seeking clarification on the issue relating to purchase of stocks by paying higher price. In view thereof, it is clear that the above direction was given for collateral consideration , violating tender condition no. 2. 7. Since excess payment to big liquor companies by APBCL was highlighted by the Press in March and April 2000 and became the subject of public criticism, APBCL reduced the purchase price for those products for the period 2000-01. Had APBCL strictly implemented clause 2. 7 of the tender conditions, it would have purchased liquor at a rate lower than that was paid during the excise years 1997-98 to 1999-2000. Vigilance and Enforcement Wing of the General administration Department, which conducted an enquiry into the excess payments mad e during 1997-98 gave a finding that liquor prices agreed to by the apbcl did confer pecuniary advantage to the tendering supplier of IMFL to APBCL to the detriment of the consumers and led to higher out go of its finances and unreasonable escalation of prices at retail level, and so it is prima facie clear that Rs. 200 crores was paid in excess by APBCL during 1997-98 itself. The total excess payment from 1997-98 to 1999-2000 would roughly be about rs. 550 crores. All this happened because a-7 and A-8, who were the Managing directors of APBCL during 1997-98, and a-6, who succeeded them in 1998-99, did not take proper interest and abused their position as public servants. A-6 (petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5832 of 2003), in spite of a Public Interest litigation in W. P. No. 16423 of 1999 being filed, permitted purchase of liquor at high prices. A-2 (petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5831 of 2003), who succeeded A-3 as Minister of prohibition and Excise, had overall control over APBCL. A-6 (petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5832 of 2003), in spite of a Public Interest litigation in W. P. No. 16423 of 1999 being filed, permitted purchase of liquor at high prices. A-2 (petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5831 of 2003), who succeeded A-3 as Minister of prohibition and Excise, had overall control over APBCL. They failed to take necessary corrective measures to curb the excess payments. But for their involvement excess payments would not have been made. Board of Directors of APBCL by its resolution dated 24-07-1998 referred the issue relating to purchase at higher prices to the Government for instructions. In reply thereto, A-5, the then Principal Secretary for Revenue, by his letter dated 18-06-1998, directed APBCL to continue to make the purchases at higher prices with full knowledge and consent of a-4, the then Chief Secretary, at the instance of A-l, the Chief Minister, who is responsible for proper running of the Government and also APBCL. Thus, A-l to A-8, who have control over the finances of APBCL, instead of helping APBCL augment its revenue, facilitated A-9 to A-l8 distilleries earn more profits at the expense of the exchequer of the state, and hence all the accused are guilty of offences under Section 409 IPC and Sec. l3 (l) (d) (ii) of the Act. Since the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) failed to take any action on the complaint dated 25-09-2002 of the 1st respondent, he is obliged to file the complaint with a request to refer the same to the Director General, ACB for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) ON receipt of the said complaint on 12-12-2003, the learned Principal Special Judge passed the following order on the same day:"perused the complaint and also the documents filed along with complaint. There is basis for the allegations made in the complaint. Counsel for complainant cited a decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 718 in a case between A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another, wherein it was held that a private complaint in respect of offences committed by public servants is maintainable. There is basis for the allegations made in the complaint. Counsel for complainant cited a decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 718 in a case between A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another, wherein it was held that a private complaint in respect of offences committed by public servants is maintainable. Another decision reported in 2002 (2) Crimes 114 in a case between p. Raghuthaman v. State of Kerala and another was also cited, wherein also it was held by the Kerala High Court that a private complaint is maintainable as far as the offences committed under prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As seen from the contents of the complaint and the documents filed in support thereof, the matter requires a thorough investigation. Therefore, this matter is referred under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the Director general, Anti Corruption Bureau, M. J. Road, Hyderabad for investigation and report by 29-01-2004. "questioning the said order, these petitions are filed by the individuals, who are shown as A-2 and A-6 in the complaint. ( 5 ) THREE contentions are raised by Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. His first contention is that the complaint is but a mudslinging campaign indulged in by the congress (I) Partyfagainst some important leaders of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), by roping in some retired and in-service IAS officers, with a view to gain political milage in the ensuing elections. It is his contention that the complaint is calculatedly filed after the dissolution of the A. P. Legislative assembly, to be used in the election campaign several months after the public interest Writ petition No. 16423 of 1999 filed with identical allegations was dismissed on 08-08-2002 in view of the dismissal of W. A. Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 2000 filed against the judgment in mc. Dowell and Company Limited and another v. Government of A. P. It is his contention that the learned Single Judge in Mc. Dowell and Co. 1244 and 1245 of 2000 filed against the judgment in mc. Dowell and Company Limited and another v. Government of A. P. It is his contention that the learned Single Judge in Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. case held that the price of liquor depends on several factors, the fact that prices of liquor in the neighbouring States is lower than the prices in this State, is of no relevance to decide if there is any misconduct as defined under the Act by any of the petitioners, and since no specific allegation is made against any of the petitioners regarding their alleged misconduct as defined in Section 13 of the Act, the complaint with a prayer to refer the same for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , is akin to a shot in the dark without knowing whether there is prey or not , and is positively intended to be used against the TDP in the election campaign by Congress (I) party, and so it is clear that it is a complaint attended with mala fides. It is his contention that since the allegations in the complaint, if taken to be true, do not show commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioners, the order of the learned Special Judge referring the complaint for investigation is liable to be set aside. His second contention is that since the Act came into force subsequent to rendition of a. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, relied on by the learned Special Judge, which was rendered when Prevention of Corruption act, 1947 (1947 Act) and Criminal Law amendment Act, 1952 (1952 Act) were in force, the ratio in the said decision can have no application after the coming into force of the Act, and, in any event, in view of the ratio in G. Lakshminamyana v. Police Inspector and prabhanshu Kamal and others v. Awadhesh Singh bhandoriya and another, the order impugned in these petitions is not sustainable. Relying on State of Karnataka v. Arun Kumar Agarwal, he contended that criminal investigation cannot be ordered as a matter of course and can be ordered only when the allegations therein show the commission of a cognizable offence, and since there is nothing in the complaint to show that petitioners committed any offence, or a cognizable offence, the learned Principal Special Judge was in error in referring the complaint for investigation. His next contention is that the assumption of the 1st respondent, and the Vigilance department, that APBCL incurred loss is not, and cannot be, true because liquor was not purchased by APBCL from the manufacturers by paying price, and since it was only indenting on behalf of the retailers who have to pay the amount due to the distilleries through APBCL along with its commission. He relied on the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by A-6 in W. P. No. 16423 of 1999, which is relied on by the 1st respondent in his complaint, where he alleged that there was no necessity to invest any funds by the APBCL for making purchases and that sale of liquor at higher prices would have no adverse effect on the revenue to the Government and on the other hand it would yield more excise duty and sales tax, and so there would be higher income to the Government, and contended that since no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners in the complaint, the same is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) THE contention of Sri R. K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, is that since Vigilance and enforcement Department, which is but a wing of the government, made an enquiry into the allegations regarding APBCL paying high prices to distilleries and gave a specific finding that there was wrongful loss to apbcl and wrongful gain to the suppliers, there is prima facie evidence to establish commission of an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, and so the order of the learned Special Judge directing an investigation into the complaint cannot be found fault with. It is his contention that when a product which is being sold at Rs. 2/- was purchased by paying price of Rs. 100. 00, presumption of misconduct can be drawn and if an investigation is ordered, the actual beneficiaries of the excess amount of Rs. 98. 00 paid for purchase would be known, and so the order impugned needs no interference. Relying on the observations in paragraphs 30 and 31 of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal he contended that when commission of a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of police, or if the Magistrate under Sec. 156 (3) cr. 98. 00 paid for purchase would be known, and so the order impugned needs no interference. Relying on the observations in paragraphs 30 and 31 of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal he contended that when commission of a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of police, or if the Magistrate under Sec. 156 (3) cr. P. C. sends a complaint filed before him to police for investigation, police is bound to register a case and investigate into the same without embarking upon a preliminary enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant, is reliable and genuine or otherwise, and that police cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. In support of his contention that question of making any enquiry or preliminary enquiry before registering a crime is not contemplated by Cr. P. C. he relied on the observations in para 13 at page 206 of Satish Kumar Goel v. State and others and Shanti Devi and another v. State. Relying on Vineeth Narain v. Union of india he contended that no sanction from any authority is necessary for registration of a cognizable offence. Relying on K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala he contends that since the report of vigilance department shows that excess payments were made, there is prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, and so order directing registration of a crime is unassailable. Relying on P. Raghuthaman v. State of Kerala and another and A. R. Antulay case (2 supra) he contended that the Special judge under the Act has a right to receive a private complaint in respect of offences committed under the Act and refer it for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Relying on Suresh Chandjain v. State of M. P. Gopal Das v. State of Assam, Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W. B. he contended that an FIR has to be registered whenever information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given and so the order impugned in these petitions needs no interference. By way of practical demonstration to show the price difference between the same type of liquor being sold in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and andhra Pradesh, he produced some bottles and read out the maximum retail prices noted thereon and contended that in view of the vast difference in prices it is clear that pecuniary advantage was allowed to be obtained by the action of the APBCL to the concerned distilleries and there would have been heavy smuggling of the same product into Andhra Pradesh, causing erosion of the revenue legally due to the exchequer. It is his contention that since W. P. No. 16423 of 1999 was dismissed as infructuous, in view of the dismissal of W. A. Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 2000, and since the excise year 1999-2000 came to an end, without adjudicating the same on merits, the said judgment has no bearing on the merits of this case. It is his contention that arun Kumar Agarwal case (5 supra) relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, has no application to the facts of this case because the facts in that case, as can be seen from para 16 at page 419 of the Judgment, show that after the agreement (which was the subject matter of the lis in that case) was entered into after approval by different statutory and other agencies of the government of India, three different governments headed by three different Chief ministers in the State did not find anything suspicious therein, and since in this case the same Government headed by the same Chief minister is in power even in 1997-98 and till now also. It is his contention that the object and purpose behind clause 2. 7 of the tender conditions is avoiding of smuggling from neighbouring States and since the prices of liquor in this Sate were higher than the prices in the neighbouring States, there would have been heavy smuggling of liquor from the neighbouring States to this State, resulting in heavy loss of excise duty and sales tax due to the Government, and that is the reason why the vigilance report shows that there was heavy loss to the Government and APBCL, which clearly falls within the meaning of section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. ( 7 ) ). ( 7 ) ). Basing on the contentions, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Special Judge has power to receive and refer a private complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) cr. P. C? (ii) Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioners? (iii) To what relief? ( 8 ) POINT No. 1: In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal case (6 supra), Satish Kumar Goel case (7 supra), shanti Devi case (8 supra), Suresh Chand jain case (12 supra), Gopal Das case (13 supra), madhubala case (14 supra) and Nirmaljit Singh hoon case (15 supra) there can be no doubt for the proposition that when commission of a cognizable offence is reported, in view of section 154 Cr. P. C. , police are bound to register a case, and when commission of a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance thereof, he can either take cognizance thereof or refer the same for investigation by police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , but it should be kept in view that the condition precedent for exercising such power is existence of a report relating to commission of a cognizable offence . So, if the report given to police does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the police are not bound to register an FIR on its basis. Similarly, if the complaint filed before a Magistrate does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, he has no jurisdiction either to take cognizance thereof, or to refer it for investigation by police. ( 9 ) IN view of the observations in Bhajanlal case (6 supra) and Vineeth Narain case (9 supra), no sanction from anybody is required for registering a cognizable offence. Since offences under the Act are cognizable offences, if anybody files a report (complaint) before the concerned Police Officer setting out the details of the offence committed by a public servant, he is bound to register the same as a crime and take up investigation. The facts in G. Lakshminarayana case (3 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners, show that complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 500 and 501 IPC, filed before a Magistrate, was referred to police for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. The facts in G. Lakshminarayana case (3 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners, show that complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 500 and 501 IPC, filed before a Magistrate, was referred to police for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Ex facie the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in that case is improper, in view of Section 199 Cr. P. C. , which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XXI ipc (which contains Sections 499 to 502) except on a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence, and so the magistrate could not have taken cognizance of offences under Section 500 and /or 501 ipc even if the police had filed a charge- sheet after investigation into the complaint. Probably in view thereof, and since the accused in that case was the Vice Chancellor of a University, and hence is a public servant, the learned Judge gave a direction to the magistrate to consider the question whether sanction under Section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. is necessary or not. The said decision is of no help to decide this point. Recently the supreme Court in M. Narayandas v. State of karnataka, by following the ratio in State of punjab v. Raj Singh, held that provisions of sections 195 and 340 Cr. P. C. do not circumscribe the power of the police to investigate, and the question of sanction would be relevant only at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the Court. Since section 16 of the Act places an embargo on the Court taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 7,10,11,13 and 14 of the Act, but not on the investigation into the offences by the police, there can be no impediment for the police registering FIR on a report relating to commission of a cognizable offence. ( 10 ) A learned Single Judge of Kerala High court, while considering the question whether a Special Judge under the Act can receive a private complaint for offences under the Act and has the power to refer it for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. ( 10 ) A learned Single Judge of Kerala High court, while considering the question whether a Special Judge under the Act can receive a private complaint for offences under the Act and has the power to refer it for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. had in P. Raghuthaman case (11 supra), referring to P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras and A. R. Antulay case (2 supra), held that the vigilance department is bound to register a crime on the basis of a complaint sent to it for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. I am in respectful agreement with that view for the reasons to be given in the next paragraph. ( 11 ) THOUGH 1947 Act and 1952 Act are repealed by virtue of Section 30 of the Act, since all the provisions in 1947 Act and 1952 act are incorporated in the Act, with little modifications in view of the coming into force of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and since no provision in either of the 1947 and 1952 enactments is either omitted or modified, the law laid down by the Supreme court in A. R. Antulay case (2 supra) holds good even after the coming into force of the act. No doubt, A. R. Antulay case (2 supra) relates to Special Court taking cognizance of a private complaint. But since the constitution Bench in that decision held that special Court constituted to try offences under the 1952 Act is a Court of original jurisdiction and will have all the powers possessed by a Court of original criminal jurisdiction as in Criminal Procedure Code, except those specially excluded, since applicability of Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. or section 190 Cr. P. C. is not excluded by the act, it necessarily means that Special Judge has the power to refer a private complaint filed before him to police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Therefore, I hold that Special Judge under the Act has power to refer a private complaint filed before him to vigilance cell under Section 156 (3) cr. P. C. for investigation, provided,of course, it discloses commission of a cognizable offence by the public servant named therein. The point is answered accordingly. P. C. Therefore, I hold that Special Judge under the Act has power to refer a private complaint filed before him to vigilance cell under Section 156 (3) cr. P. C. for investigation, provided,of course, it discloses commission of a cognizable offence by the public servant named therein. The point is answered accordingly. ( 12 ) POINT No. 2: The sheet anchor of the case of the 1st respondent is the report of general Administration Department (Vigilance and Enforcement Department) in c. No. 361/vande/r1/98, filed as document no. 4 along with the complaint. It is at pages 65,67 and 68 of the paper book furnished by the learned counsel for 1st respondent (page 66 is missing from the paper book furnished to the Court ). It reads:"the Vigilance and Enforcement department took up probe into the allegation that appeared in a section of the press that overly liberal price was paid to liquor manufacturers by the andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation limited (APBCL) causing undue loss to the state exchequer to an extent of rs. 200 crores for the financial year 1997-98. Among other things, it was alleged that apbcl had flouted the norms and fixed higher basic price for liquor products which in turn resulted in not only loss to the state exchequer but sent the prices of the IMFL in the State soaring. It was mainly alleged that the Corporation while inviting quotations from the manufacturers had made departure from the condition laid down in clause 2. 7 of the tender schedule for procurement of imfl/beer in tender noticeno. APBCL/ 97-98/1, dt. 31-03-97. Responding to the adverse media reports, Vande Department asked for connected records from the corporation with a view to finding out if there was any truth in the allegation. The corporation furnished the following records for perusal by the Vande:1. Sub-Committee Report (97-98): consisting (a) first report, (b) supplementary report of sub- committee (pertaining to Beer) (c) supplementary report of Sub-Committee negotiations with local distilleries. 2. Minutes of the 70th Board meeting held on 25-04-97, and 3. Schedule V of tender schedule. 2. Subsequently, Vande Department had requested the Corporation to make available records, which would throw light on the mechanism and modalities laid down by the Corporation with regard to price fixation of Beer/imfl and also details of negotiations between the Sub-committee and tenderers. 2. Minutes of the 70th Board meeting held on 25-04-97, and 3. Schedule V of tender schedule. 2. Subsequently, Vande Department had requested the Corporation to make available records, which would throw light on the mechanism and modalities laid down by the Corporation with regard to price fixation of Beer/imfl and also details of negotiations between the Sub-committee and tenderers. After protracted correspondence the Corporation had finally confirmed, in the reference 4th cited, that relevant files and the information available with them were already furnished. The position was reiterated in the reference 5th cited above. In the circumstances, the records made available in the first instance alone is construed as the available material on the subject and scrutinized. In terms of the above clause, it was incumbent on the Sub-committee to take into account the rates prevailing in the neighbouring states like Tamil Nadu, kerala and Karnataka etc. A perusal of the material also shows that the corporation had hurriedly accepted the tenders lacking the relevant information more importantly prices prevailing in the neighbouring states. The Corporation on its part does not seem to have endeavoured to ascertain the prevailing rates in the neighbouring states. On the contrary, the entire exercise seems to have revolved round negotiating the prices on the basis of offers made by the tenderers. The sub-committee had persuaded itself to accept the costing provided by the Corporation and proceeded on that basis in fixing the procurement prices. On comparison of prices of some of the premium brands prevailing in the neighbouring states visa-vis the basis rate recommended by apbcl it would appear that the action of the sub-committee in arriving at basic procurement prices without taking cognizance of the prices prevailing in neighbouring states had definitely cost the exchequer dearly and would have conferred undue pecuniary advantage to the suppliers. The following tabular statement amply illustrates the point. RATES FOR THE YEAR 1997-98 @@ S. Name of the market basic rate in basic rate basic rate in basic rate difference % of excess no. Board share tamilnadu in Kerala karnataka recommended by APBCL per case recommended by APBCL when amount as against lowest rate@@ compared to other States @@1. No. 1 Mc. 10% 457. 16 590. 00 701. 00 754. 34 297. 18 65% whisky 750ml. 2. Mc. Brandy 32% 427. 82 *368. 55 450. 00 590. 68 222. 13 60% 3. Bagpiper Whisky 21% 460. No. 1 Mc. 10% 457. 16 590. 00 701. 00 754. 34 297. 18 65% whisky 750ml. 2. Mc. Brandy 32% 427. 82 *368. 55 450. 00 590. 68 222. 13 60% 3. Bagpiper Whisky 21% 460. 73 441. 00 na 594. 41 153. 41 35%@@ 8. In the circumstances, one may be inclined to view that there is some truth in the allegation that the Corporations had maintained calculated silence on the question of not adhering to Section 2. 7 of the tender conditions. It would also lend credence to the allegation that the abnormal higher procurement prices and the value addition at the retail stage had made liquor costlier to the consumer in the state and had served as a favourable factor for smuggling of non-duty paid liquor into the State. 9. The press carried a rejoinder issued by md, APBCL, exposing the vain attempt to justify the favourable treatment given to manufacturers of premium brand liquors. It also appears from the report that the rejoinder did not explain the reasons for paying higher procurement prices as recommended by Sub-Committee and failure on the part of the APBCL to explain whether the committee could circumvent the conditions laid down in the tender. On scrutiny of the records made available by the Corporation, it would also appear that committee did not record any reasons for making a departure from the condition laid down. In the circumstances, the alleged irregularities committed by the Sub-committee appear to be substantially true. The feeble rejoinder, in the opinion of Vande, had certainly placed the government in an embarrassing position. SUMMARY: allegation: The crux of the allegation that appeared in the press is that by non- adherence to clause 2. 7 of the Terms and conditions of the Tender schedule for purchase of IMFL by the APBCL which required that the tenderer should quote competitive rates and should provide specifically information of the prices charged by them for supply of liquor to any other state organization outside A. P. , resulted in huge price escalation in the state to the detriment of local consumer and also resulted in loss of revenue to the state. Findings: From the detailed discussion in the foregoing para, it is clear that the allegations are substantially true, in so far as price escalation as result of non- adherence and disregard shown to a vital clause 2. Findings: From the detailed discussion in the foregoing para, it is clear that the allegations are substantially true, in so far as price escalation as result of non- adherence and disregard shown to a vital clause 2. 7 that was obviously included in the terms of conditions to subserve the interest of local consumer. APBCL had failed in obtaining this vital information about lowest rates charged by tenderers in respect of supply to other states. The liquor prices agreed to by the APBCL did conferpecuniary advantage to the tendering supplier of IMFL to APBCL to the detriment of the consumers and led to higher out go of its finances and unreasonable escalation of prices at retail level. 2. The escalated,prices, it canbe said with certainty, might have given added fillip / incentive to the smuggling of non-duty paid liquor causing erosion of revenue. 3. It may also be pertinent to mention that the process of fixing prices in the manner it was done had caused wrongful loss to Andhra Pradesh Beverages corporation Ltd. , and wrongful gain to the suppliers. 4. Therefore, there is an imperative need to review the matter as the same view seems to have been taken in the current excise year also. "as could be seen from the above, it is pertinent to note that it is the Committee appointed for negotiations, but not any of the Ministers or officers shown in the complaint, that fixed the procurement prices. Here it is relevant to mention that power to negotiate was specifically reserved in clause No. 2. 7 relied on by the 1st respondent. There is nothing in clause 2. 7 (extracted above) to show that tenderers who quoted prices above the prices in the neighbouring States would be disqualified for negotiations. ( 13 ) SINCE the offence alleged in this case is under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) and (or) (iii) of the act, which relate to a public servant who is holding an office either by use or abuse of such office obtaining for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without public interest, existence or non-existence of clause 2. 7, in my considered opinion, is of little relevance to find out if an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is committed or not, because the essence of the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) is obtaining pecuniary advantage by a public servant for himself or to a third party without public interest, by abusing, or using his office . So, the important point for finding out whether an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is committed in this case (since the allegation is that product was purchased at a high price and thereby the persons shown as accused obtained pecuniary advantage to the vendor) or not would be in finding out the cost at which the product offered for sale was manufactured, and at what rate it is offered for sale to APBCL. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel for 1st respondent, if t he product, which was manufactured for sale at a cost of less than rs. 2/- and was being sold in other places at rs. 2/-, is agreed to be purchased by a Public servant acting on behalf of Government for a price of Rs. 100. 00, it can, prima facie, be said that an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the act was committed by him, because by virtue of such purchase the vendor had gained a pecuniary advantage without any public interest. But, when the cost of production of the product in the State in which it is produced is more than Rs. 95. 00- by his selling it at Rs. 100. 00 it cannot be said that the manufacturer had gained a pecuniary advantage by such purchase. So, the essence of the question is the manufacturing price of the product in the State in which it is produced and sold. Even as per the averments in the complaint, the local distilleries only were the tenderers. Therefore, the cost of production in Andhra Pradesh, but not the cost of production in its neighbouring States, that would be relevant for finding out the cost of the product offered for sale. ( 14 ) IN this case 1st respondent, who is relying on some of the averments in the counter-affidavit of A-6 (petitioner in crl. Therefore, the cost of production in Andhra Pradesh, but not the cost of production in its neighbouring States, that would be relevant for finding out the cost of the product offered for sale. ( 14 ) IN this case 1st respondent, who is relying on some of the averments in the counter-affidavit of A-6 (petitioner in crl. P. No. 5832 of 2003) in W. P. No. 11581 of 2000, had filed the same as document No. 3 along with the complaint. But, significantly he did not state anywhere in the complaint that any, or some of the facts mentioned in the said counter-affidavit are factually incorrect or wrong. Since 1st respondent is relying on the said document to buttress his case, it has to be taken that the facts mentioned therein are admitted by 1st respondent. Admittedly, the said W. P. No. 11581 of 2000 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by the Judgment in Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. (1 supra), and it became final in view of the withdrawal of writ appeals filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Here I feel it relevant to extract paras 10 to 14 of the said Judgment. They read: "10. For the year 1993-94 the 2nd respondent entered into rate contracts with various manufacturers. During the currency of the 1994 contracts, the State government enacted Act 17 of 1995 (w. e. f. 16-1-1995) introducing prohibition. Resultantly, renewal of manufacturing and distillery licences was refused. In course of time Ordinance 12 of 1995 introduced Section 7-A to the provisions of Act 17 of 1995, which Ordinance was replaced by amending Act 35 of 1995 and prohibition of manufacture was enacted. The provisions of the Amending Act 35/95 were challenged in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. M/c. Dowell and Co. and others, air 1996 SC 1627 , but the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act including section 7-A. Thereafter, by amending act 5 of 1997 Chapter IV of Act 17/95 was substituted permitting regulation of manufacture of liquor, other than arrack, in accordance with the provisions of the act (15 of 1993 ). Consequent on these legislative changes, the 2nd respondent resumed operations w. e. f. 1-4-1997. The 2nd respondent issued a tender notification on 31-3-1997 for the period of 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998. Clause 2. Consequent on these legislative changes, the 2nd respondent resumed operations w. e. f. 1-4-1997. The 2nd respondent issued a tender notification on 31-3-1997 for the period of 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998. Clause 2. 7 of the terms and conditions of the above tender is as under:"the tenderers should quote the prices for their products on a competitive basis. It shall be open to the Corporation to conduct negotiations with any or all tenderers, if necessary. The tenderers shall ensure that the basis rates quoted by them for their products should not be higher than the rates quoted for supplies of the same brands of the other states. The tenderer shall furnish the rates at which their brands are being supplied to similar Corporations in Tamil Nadu, kerala and Karnataka (TASMAC, KBCL and MSIL respectively) with the details of basic price, excise duty, sales tax as given in the Annexure V. "11. Annexure-I to the tender notification sets out the form wherein the rate at which a product is supplied to similar corporations and the prevailing retail rates in the three States above has to be set out by the tenderer. The requirement that a tenderer shall quote brand specific comparative prices qua the rates quoted in the three neighbouring States, was thus introduced by this clause. 12. However, the negotiations committee approved rate contracts for the brands quoted at rates higher than the rates quoted in the neighbouring States notwithstanding Clause 2. 7. 13. For the subsequent years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 also higher rates quoted by manufacturers were approved and indents placed on the manufacturers (notwithstanding C1. 2. 7 supra ). 14. In this letter No. 25967/ex. III-I/98-3, dated 18-06-1998, the Government addressed the 2nd respondent in response to the 2nd respondent s letter dated 28-4-1998, stating that after careful consideration the Government has approved the rates negotiated by the negotiations committee for the year 1998-99, even though they are higher than the rates obtaining in Tamil Nadu. By this letter the 2nd respondent was also directed to closely monitor the implementation of the current policy and submit its views once in a quarter to the government to facilitate the formulation of policy for the next year. " ( 15 ) IN para 4 of his counter-affidavit in w. P. No. 11581 of 2000 (pages 26 and 27 of the paper book) A-6 (petitioner in Crl. " ( 15 ) IN para 4 of his counter-affidavit in w. P. No. 11581 of 2000 (pages 26 and 27 of the paper book) A-6 (petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5832 of 2003) gave the reasons for the negotiations committee approving the rate contract at higher rates, which is referred to in para 12 of the judgment in Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. (1 supra) extracted above. It reads:"the prices fixed in the tender of 1993 (effective from 01-10-1994) became the basis for fixing the rates for subsequent years. In 1994 the prices were fixed marginally higher than the rates of 1993 (effective from 01-10-1994 ). In 1997 after partial lifting of prohibition the corporation allowed 3% to 5% increase over 1994 prices in respect of all the existing brands of the Medium and regular categories of liquor. In 1998-99 the committee persuaded the manufacturers to reduce the prices by a minimum of 3% over the 1997-98 prices due to increase in the volumes of sales. All the suppliers including the present petitioners reduced the prices by a minimum of 3%. As per the directions of the Government the Corporation extended the rate contract agreement of 1998-99 for the year 1999-2000. " (underlining mine) in para 11 at page 14 of his counter-affidavit, a-6 stated (page-36 of paper book):"the Committee constituted by the government for negotiating the rates recommended for giving an increase of 4%. 5% and 10% over the corresponding basic rate approved by the Corporation for the year 1994-95 or the quoted price whichever is less for the year 1997-98 in respect of existing brands falling under medium. Regular and Premium categories of IML respectively. Accordingly the Corporation approved the offers of the various suppliers including those of the petitioners for the year 1997-98. The Corporation was aware of the fact that in respect of certainbrands the prices fixed by the Corporation for the year 1997-98 are higher than the prices prevailing in other States. The prices fixed by the Corporation for No. 1 Mc. Dowell whisky, No. 1 Me. Dowell Brandy and bag Piper whisky belonging to the petitioners are some of the brands whose rates are considerably higher in andhra Pradesh as compared to rates prevailing in Tamilnadu and /or Kerala. The prices fixed by the Corporation for No. 1 Mc. Dowell whisky, No. 1 Me. Dowell Brandy and bag Piper whisky belonging to the petitioners are some of the brands whose rates are considerably higher in andhra Pradesh as compared to rates prevailing in Tamilnadu and /or Kerala. " (underlining mine) ( 16 ) 1st respondent, as a public-spirited citizen, taking cudgels against corruption among public servants, feeling aggrieved by the APBCL paying price higher than the price in the neighbouring States in respect of certain brands of liquor, in spite of A-6 specifically alleging in para 11 of his counter- affidavit in W. P. No. 11581 of 2000, extracted above, that prices for 1997-98 were fixed marginally above the rates in 1994-95, did not either allege any misconduct on the part of Ministers and Officials who allowed purchase and sale of liquor in Andhra pradesh at a particular rate during 1993-94, nor made them accused in his complaint. Judicial notice can be taken to the fact that the Government in power during 1993 and 1994 was Congress-I Government. So, it has to be taken that in the view of 1st respondent the Ministers and concerned Officers, who agreed to purchase liquor for the distilleries at a particular rate during 1993-94 and 1994-95 were not guilty of anymisconduct as defined in Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, as the prices agreed to be paid by APBCL during that period to them did not either confer any pecuniary advantage to them nor were they guilty of abuse of their office as public servants. That prices of commodities are going up marginally year-by-year is well known. As per the counter-affidavit of A-6, extracted above, the Negotiations Committee only agreed to increase the prices by 4%, 5% and 10% over the corresponding basic rates approved by APBCL for 1994-95, or the price quoted by the tenderers, whichever is less. That prices of commodities are going up marginally year-by-year is well known. As per the counter-affidavit of A-6, extracted above, the Negotiations Committee only agreed to increase the prices by 4%, 5% and 10% over the corresponding basic rates approved by APBCL for 1994-95, or the price quoted by the tenderers, whichever is less. If purchase of liquor at price less than 4%, 5% and 10% of the prices agreed in 1997-98 during 1994-95 (prohibition was introduced in Andhra Pradesh with effect from 16-01-1995 and was lifted on 01-04-1997) as per the documents filed along with the complaint, did not obtain an undue pecuniary advantage to the distilleries who supplied those brands, how can it be said that agreement topurchase the same brands by paying a small margin above those rate in 1997-98, or the price quoted, which ever is less, is an offence under Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Act was committed in 1997-98, is not stated by 1st respondent in his complaint. ( 17 ) HERE I feel it relevant to mention that in para 30of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. case (l supra), reasons for the Mc. Dowell Company quoting a price higher than that in the neighbouring states are given in extenso. As stated earlier, clause 2. 7 of the tender only required the tenderers to supply liquor at rates nearly equivalent to those brands in the neighbouring States, but vested the authority to fix the rate with the negotiations committee, during negotiations. In spite of the reasons given by A-6 in his counter- affidavit extracted above, for reasons best known to him 1st respondent did not furnish the particulars of price in Andhra Pradesh and its neighbouring States in 1993-94 and 1994-95. Had he furnished those details, it would have been very easy to verify whether the facts stated in the counter-affidavit of a-6 are correct or not. For that reason, and for the reason that 1st respondent maintained stoic silence with regard to the above allegations in the counter-affidavit of A-6, it has to be taken that the facts stated by A-6 are true. ( 18 ) THE allegations in the complaint do not show that any of the Ministers or Officials named in the complaint are responsible for the acceptance of the tenders submitted by the distilleries during 1997-98 and 1999-2000. ( 18 ) THE allegations in the complaint do not show that any of the Ministers or Officials named in the complaint are responsible for the acceptance of the tenders submitted by the distilleries during 1997-98 and 1999-2000. Acceptance, even according to the allegations in the complaint, was done by the negotiations Committee constituted for that purpose. It is not even alleged that the tender process adopted by APBCL was vitiated. As observed by the Supreme Court in R. Sat Bharati v, J. Jayalalitha in para 16 at page 6364:"market value being a variable factor and if a price was quoted and if it was not shown that the tender was vitiated, then the price quoted by the highest bidder had to be taken as the market value. "so, it prima facie has to be taken that the price offered by the distilleries and accepted by the negotiations committee was the manufacturing price in Andhra Pradesh, and so there could be no undue pecuniary advantage to the distilleries, as assumed by 1st respondent. ( 19 ) 1st respondent, who is fully aware of the judgment in Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. (1 supra) did not even allege what actually was or cou Id have been the cost of production of the brands that are sold at higher rate in Andhra pradesh than those in Tamil Nadu or karnataka. Thus, there is nothing on record to show, even prima facie, that the distilleries, who supplied some products at rate higher than those in Tamil Nadu, had obtained pecuniary advantage at the instance of any of the officials or Ministers without any public interest, or that Ministers and Officials shown in the complaint have secured such an advantage. ( 20 ) ALL these apart, in para 8 of his complaint dated 25-09-2002, addressed to the Director General, ACB (copy of which is filed along with the complaint as document no. 7), 1st respondent stated as follows (page 83 of the paper book):"the excess payments to the liquor companies started in the year 1997 to 15/05/2000. The decision to continue to purchase liquor from three big liquor companies in spite of objections from the board of the APBCL in April 1998 was taken by the cabinet. 7), 1st respondent stated as follows (page 83 of the paper book):"the excess payments to the liquor companies started in the year 1997 to 15/05/2000. The decision to continue to purchase liquor from three big liquor companies in spite of objections from the board of the APBCL in April 1998 was taken by the cabinet. "so, according to 1st respondent the decision to purchase liq uor, at the rates quoted (for 1998-99) was taken by the Cabinet, and earlier decision thereto, as per the averments in the complaint, was taken by the negotiations committee, but not by any individual or the ministers or Officials shown as accused in the complaint. In R. Sai Bharati case (18 supra) in para 38 at page 6373 the Supreme Court observed:"regarding the charge against A-3, who was the Chairman-cum-Managing director of TANSI from 1-8-1991 to 10-7-1992, we have to bear in mind certain facts. The decision to accept the offer of jaya Publications was that of the Board and not of A-3 alone. P. W. 8 the General manager and Company Secretary of tansi admitted that all the decisions were taken by the Sub-Committee and no decision was taken independently by any individual and A-3 followed the decision of the Sub-Committee, which was approved by the Board. Therefore, there was no evidence to show that A-3 acted against the decision to favour Jaya publications. The sale of land to Jaya publications is a collective decision of the Board and not of any individual, the price on which the land was to be sold and the price on which the buildings were to be sold were decided by the board of Directors to which the government gave approval and thus there was no independent assignment to a-3 in deciding the matter nor did he suppress any document by not placing them before the Board of Directors. " (underlining mine) ( 21 ) SINCE the allegations in the complaint and the documents produced by the 1st respondent show that the decision to purchase liquor at some percentage above the 1994-95 rates was taken by the negotiations committee, but not by any of the Ministers or officials shown as accused in the complaint, and decision to continue the purchase liquor at the rate agreed for 1998-99 was taken by the Cabinet, but none of the officials or ministers shown as accused in their individual capacity, even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, no offence under the Act, much less a cognizable offence, is made out against the petitioners. ( 22 ) QUESTION of APBCL incurring loss due to its accepting the offer of distilleries to supply liquor to retailers at a price higher than the rate in Tamil Nadu does not arise, because the finding of the learned Judge in mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. case (1 supra) in para 7 of the judgment is:"functionally the 2nd respondent (APBCL) is in the nature of a canalizing agency between the manufacturers and the retailers of liquor, the demurral of the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the 2nd respondent on this aspect notwithstanding". And as per the tender conditions, tenderers have to make the supplies to retailers as per the indent and receive payment. So, it is clear that no amount was invested in the APBCL for making purchases. By selling liquor at a higher price there would be additional revenue to the Government in the shape of sales Tax and Excise Duty. That is so evident from document No. 15 filed by the 1st respondent along with the complaint as "copy of the sales figures of APBCL for the period 1997-98 and 2000-01" (page 285 of paper book ). It reads: as seen from the above, the sales tax recovered in 1997-98 is very much higher than that was recovered in 1993-94 and 1994-95. Then where is the loss to the exchequer, is not explained by the 1st respondent in the complaint. It is only a surmise on the part of 1st respondent that somebody might have had some benefit due to the action of the negotiations committee in accepting the tenders. Then where is the loss to the exchequer, is not explained by the 1st respondent in the complaint. It is only a surmise on the part of 1st respondent that somebody might have had some benefit due to the action of the negotiations committee in accepting the tenders. ( 23 ) 1st respondent, having bowled a ball at an empty wicket, asked the umpire (Special judge) to obtain the opinion from the third umpire (vigilance cell) about the fate of a batsman, who is not there at the wicket, i. e. , unknown accused. As observed in para 16 at pages 419 and 420 in Arun Kumar Agarwal case (5 supra) acts of persons should not be subjected to criminal investigation on mere conjecture or surmise that some crime might have been committed somewhere by somebody, the crime, place or person involved unknown. Since what is sauce to goose would be sauce to gander also,if purchase of certain brands of liquor in 1993-94 and 1994-95 at a particular price did not result in obtaining pecuniary advantage to the distilleries without public interest, notional increase in price above that price cannot be said to be an abuse of the office to obtain a pecuniary advantage to the suppliers. By filing the present complaint, 1st respondent, assuming that there may be a needle or two, wants the vigilance department to find them out in a hayrick. He obviously wants to use such search, if is allowed to be made, the basis of campaign in the ensuing election. ( 24 ) K Karunakaran case (10 supra), relied on by the learned senior counsel for 1st respondent, has no application to the facts of this case at all. In that case the Kerala State civil Supplies Corporation (at the instance of the Chief Minister) entered into a contract with M/s. Power and Energy Pvt. Ltd. , singapore agreeing to import 15,000 MT of palmolien, in relation to which some public interest litigation writ petitions were filed. At that time Karunakaran, who was the Chief minister, was also having the portfolio of home Department, which has control over the vigilance cell. The issue relating to purchase of palmolien was also raised before the Legislative Assembly, alleging corruption worth crores of rupees. At that time Karunakaran, who was the Chief minister, was also having the portfolio of home Department, which has control over the vigilance cell. The issue relating to purchase of palmolien was also raised before the Legislative Assembly, alleging corruption worth crores of rupees. Subsequently an FIR was registered on the basis of further material, and enquiry conducted showed that there was no real requirement for the direct import of palmolien by the State Government, that the import was in excess of the requirement for the projected period, that the agreement was made without due sanction from the state Government, Finance Department, and without specifying the price, and that import conditions stipulated by the Government of india were violated in reference to price limit, terms of payment and fixation of retail price for distribution through public distribution system, etc. When registration of that FIR against him was questioned, the supreme Court in an appeal preferred by k. Karunakaran, one of the accused in the case, against the order of dismissal of the writ petition to quash the FIR, declined to interfere on the ground that there was material to justify the registration of the FIR. The facts in this case are entirely different from the facts in that case. Even according to the allegations in the complaint in this case, there is no direct involvement of any of the ministers or Officials shown in the complaint in the acceptance of the tenders. Document no. 15 produced by the first respondent along with the complaint (extracted in para 22 above) shows that there was a enormous increase in the revenue of the government in the shape of sales tax. So, it cannot be said that there was loss of revenue to the Government. ( 25 ) THIS obviously is yet another attempt to make the Court a ground for playing a political game, to attract the attention of the press and visual media. Wittingly or unwittingly the learned Special Judge walked in the trap and gave opportunity to the political parties to make the registration of a crime against the persons, whom the 1st respondent chose to be arrayed as accused, a sensational news, enabling their gaining wide publicity. Wittingly or unwittingly the learned Special Judge walked in the trap and gave opportunity to the political parties to make the registration of a crime against the persons, whom the 1st respondent chose to be arrayed as accused, a sensational news, enabling their gaining wide publicity. In Prabhanshu Kamal case (4 supra) a learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh high Court held that when a private complaint for an offence under the Act is filed, the Court should not act as a post office for forwarding the complaint to police, but has to examine the same and find out if prima facie material is there or not. Public interest litigation in W. P. No. 16423 of 1999 in respect of the same issue was dismissed on 08-08-2002. Complaint to Director General, vigilance Department is said to have been made on 25-09-2002. This complaint is filed in December 2003 after dissolution of A. P. Legislative Assembly and just before general public are expecting announcement of the date of election. The contention that 1st respondent was hoping that appropriate action would be taken, and so he did not move till recently, is but a lame excuse. There seems to be no bona fides in the complaint, which does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioners. The point is answered accordingly. ( 26 ) POINT No. 3: Normally courts grant relief only to the parties who come before it, but when this Court s notice is brought to abuse of process of Court, it can certainly act on the principle EX DEITO JUSTITIAE and grant relief to others who are not before it also. In fact, a three-Judge Bench of the supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Devendrappa observed:"all Courts, where civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest. " ( 27 ) N Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, following R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, Bhajanlal case (6 supra) and other cases, held that this Court under section 482 can quash the proceedings (i) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (ii) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, and (iii) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure or the Act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. As stated earlier, the allegations in the complaint, if taken to be true, do not disclose commission of any offence under the Act, much less a cognizable offence, by any of the accused named in the complaint. ( 28 ) THE contention of the learned Senior counsel for 1st respondent that in view of the finding of the Vigilance and Enforcement department the FIR cannot be quashed, but it has to be enquired into, without naming anybody, to find out who are the recipients of the largesse of high price paid to the distilleries, so that the offenders can be brought to book, has no substance, because there is no prima facie material to show that the price at which APBCL agreed to purchase some of the brands of liquor from some distilleries is much higher than their cost price. In the complaint filed by the 1st respondent more than three years after disposal of Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd. case (1 supra) he did not state the details as to the actual cost of production and ex-factory price for the brands, which were sold at a price higher than the neighbouring States. As stated earlier, as per the counter-affidavit of A-6 in w. P. No. 11581 of 2000, extracted in para 15 above (which are not denied or disputed by the 1st respondent) the prices fixed in 1997-98 were marginally above the prices fixed in 1994-95. As stated earlier, as per the counter-affidavit of A-6 in w. P. No. 11581 of 2000, extracted in para 15 above (which are not denied or disputed by the 1st respondent) the prices fixed in 1997-98 were marginally above the prices fixed in 1994-95. So, there can be no question of any misconduct by anybody as per section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. ( 29 ) IN the result, both the petitions are allowed and the complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Special Judge is dismissed.