Judgment :- The eighth accused in Special Case No.1 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai prefers the present criminal original petition seeking quashment of the charge sheet laid as against him in Crime No.2 of 1998 on the file of the respondents for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B),409,167,420,477(A) IPC r/w 109 IPC and 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) and Section 15 r/w 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Thesecond respondent has alleged in the First Information Report as follows: The Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited which was incorporated on 08.02.1980 under the Companies Act, 1986 is one of the undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Government entrusted the modernisation of Periyar-Vaigai link canal work to the Public Works Department Irrigation Branch in the year 1990. The total value of the entire scheme was Rs.35 crores. Credible information and discreet enquiries would reveal that the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited entrusted a portion of the aforesaid work to the eighth accused, who was a Sub contractor. During the period between May 1993 and July 1994, the other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with the eighth accused to misappropriate the funds of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited in relation to the aforesaid contract work in the guise of making adhoc payments for the work allegedly executed by violating all the rules and regulations in the exercise of their official capacity, abusing their official position without recording any measurement in M-Book, falsifying the accounts and producing false certificates for misusing the funds allotted for the aforesaid works and released payment approximately to the tune of Rs.3.65 crores to the eighth accused in excess of the estimated cost even before the completion of the work and misappropriated about Rs.1 crore. 3. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai, who is the second respondent herein, is the author of the aforesaid First Information Report. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Virudhunagar, who is the first respondent herein, has taken up the case for investigation and laid final report alleging commission of the offences stated supra. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai has taken up the case on file in Special Case No.1 of 2006. 5. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Virudhunagar, who is the first respondent herein, has taken up the case for investigation and laid final report alleging commission of the offences stated supra. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai has taken up the case on file in Special Case No.1 of 2006. 5. Three contentions are made on the side of the eighth accused, who is the petitioner herein. The legal plea taken by the petitioner is that the second respondent has no authority to register a case based on the information, he has collected from anonymous sources. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates registration of a case based on the information furnished by a third party. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai cannot be the author of the complaint to set the law in motion. The next stand taken by the petitioner is that the perusal of the entire gamut of allegations found in the First Information Report and the statements recorded by the first respondent would go to show that there was no offence committed by the petitioner, who was just a contractor. The third ground set up by the petitioner herein is that the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited having filed written statement to the effect that excess payment had been made to the petitioner by the officials attached to the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, has come out with a wild allegation in this complaint just to counter blast the civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking payment withheld by the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-8 would contend that the petitioner/A-8, who has nothing to do with the internal bungling of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, has been arraigned as accused just to intimidate him to withdraw the civil case, he has already launched as against the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited seeking to disburse the amount due to the petitioner herein. Having taken the plea in the written statement in the civil suit filed by the petitioner that excess payment has been made to him, the written statement already filed with the aforesaid allegation has now taken a shape of a complaint. Having taken the plea in the written statement in the civil suit filed by the petitioner that excess payment has been made to him, the written statement already filed with the aforesaid allegation has now taken a shape of a complaint. The bullying tactics adopted to harass the petitioner, who has legitimately claimed his amount due from the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, could be stopped only by discharging him from the criminal proceedings. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that there is no bar for prosecuting the petitioner herein, who has launched a civil suit claiming some amount for the contract work, he had done at the request of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited. There is no impediment to register a complaint by the police officer on receipt of some information and also on holding discreet enquiry, he would further contend. 8. On a thorough perusal of the First Information Report and the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is found that there are materials to show prima facie that there had been violation of the rules and regulations by the other accused, improper recording of measurement in M-Book and production of false certificates for the purpose of depleting the funds of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited. The investigation has shown prima facie that there had been criminal conspiracy hatched by all the accused including the petitioner herein with an intention of misappropriating the funds of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited (TNSCC) an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer has spoken to the fact that incorrect contract work bills have been prepared and the materials and machineries of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited have been liberally supplied to the petitioner without proper accounting. The evidence collected by the Investigating Agency would also reveal prima facie that the other accused have misused their official position just to obtain pecuniary advantage for the petitioner herein. The aforesaid materials on record in the background of the First Information Report launched by the second respondent would go to show that various offences as detailed in the charge sheet have been prima facie committed by the petitioner herein. 9. The aforesaid materials on record in the background of the First Information Report launched by the second respondent would go to show that various offences as detailed in the charge sheet have been prima facie committed by the petitioner herein. 9. It is true that a civil case has been filed by the petitioner as against the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited for recovery of the amount due from them for the contract work assigned and accomplished by him. It is not denied that in the written statement, the plea of excess payment made to the petitioner was taken up as a strong ground by the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) the resistance put up by the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited in the civil suit filed by the petitioner does not legally restrain the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited to prosecute the petitioner along with the other officials of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited. After all the civil Court is going to decide whether there was any civil liability on the part of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited. But the criminal prosecution has been launched to punish the petitioner and other officials of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited for various offences, they have allegedly committed in the aftermath of the conspiracy hatched by them. If it was only an assignment of civil contract to the petitioner and the petitioner had just accomplished the assignment entrusted to him and the claim for amount due to the petitioner was claimed by him and the plea of excess payment was set up by the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, there is virtually no criminal offence committed by the petitioner herein. But the second respondent on conducting a discreet enquiry has lodged a complaint to the effect that there had been conspiracy and as a consequence thereof the funds of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited had flowed stealthily to the pockets of the petitioner at the instance of the other officials. In other words misappropriation of the funds of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu has been levelled against the petitioner and others. In other words misappropriation of the funds of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu has been levelled against the petitioner and others. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from the criminal prosecution before ever encountering the trial of the case on the flimsy ground that the plea of excess payment made to the petitioner was the original stand of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited in the civil case filed by the petitioner herein. 10. Here is a case where the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai, the second respondent herein, has set the law in motion by registering the First Information Report not based on any information furnished by a third party but based on the information, he has gathered from some anonymous sources and also based on the discreet enquiry, he had held. 11. Such procedure adopted by the second respondent is now challenged by the petitioner herein. It is found that this Court in Gnaneswaran v. State [2004 M.L.J.(Crl.)435] has held as follows: "A careful perusal of the information said to have been received by the respondent is bald in the sense that application of Sec.154, Crl.P.C. has no place nor could it be said that the case has been registered in accordance with the provisions of law envisaged under Sec.154, Crl.P.C. and therefore no time need be wasted in arriving at the conclusion that it is not a case registered in accordance with law and hence such a case registered, deviating from the warranting procedures contemplated under Sec.154, Crl.P.C., has absolutely bereft of the force of the law and the same is non est in law and therefore becomes only liable to be quashed." 12. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court, it is found that the aforesaid case had also been registered based on the information received and the preliminary independent enquiry conducted by the police officer concerned. 13. The learned Judge having given his anxious thought to the provision under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has taken a view that the police concerned has no authority to register a case based on some information from anonymous sources and the preliminary enquiry undertaken by him. 14. 13. The learned Judge having given his anxious thought to the provision under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has taken a view that the police concerned has no authority to register a case based on some information from anonymous sources and the preliminary enquiry undertaken by him. 14. On a careful reading of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is found that the procedure to be adopted by the Station House Officer on receipt of information either orally or in writing has been adumbrated therein. The mode of receipt of the information from a third party, the recording of the same, supply of free copy of such information recorded to the first informant and the remedy available to the aggrieved party, in case the Station House Officer failed to discharge the aforesaid responsibility and the commencement of the investigation, in case the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence have been detailed under the said provision of law. 15. It is found that the provision under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which envisages the procedure for investigation had not been brought to the notice of the learned Judge. 16. 15. It is found that the provision under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which envisages the procedure for investigation had not been brought to the notice of the learned Judge. 16. It is pertinent to incorporate herein below the provision of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "Procedure for investigation:- (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report, and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender: Provided that:- (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a Police Station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; (b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a Police Station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the Police Station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated." 17. As per Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the information relating to the commission of cognizable offence can be received either from a third party or otherwise for the purpose of embarking upon an investigation in case of cognizable offences. As per Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the information relating to the commission of cognizable offence can be received either from a third party or otherwise for the purpose of embarking upon an investigation in case of cognizable offences. The Station House Officer is required to submit a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned about such information he has got either from a third party or otherwise. Therefore to set the law in motion the information flowed from a third party is not the only source. The information can emanate from any source including anonymous quarters. That is the import of the provision under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. The Station House Officer is empowered to register a case based on the furtive information from anonymous sources in order to set the law in motion. Further if we go by the yardstick adopted by the learned Judge in the aforesaid case, then no case can be registered, if a police officer attached to a particular station house is a sole witness to a crime committed under his very nose within his territorial jurisdiction. 19. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi ( AIR 1964 SC 221 ) has held as follows: "The first question is whether the enquiry made by him before he obtained the permission of the Magistrate was "investigation" within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 154 of the Code prescribes the mode of recording the information received orally or in writing by an officer in charge of a police station in respect of the commission of a cognizable offence. Section 156 thereof authorizes such an officer to investigate any cognizable offence prescribed therein. Though ordinarily investigation is undertaken on information received by a police officer, the receipt of information is not a condition precedent for investigation. Section 157 prescribes the procedure in the matter of such an investigation which can be initiated either on information or otherwise. It is clear from the said provisions that an officer in charge of a police station can start investigation either on information or otherwise." 20. Section 157 prescribes the procedure in the matter of such an investigation which can be initiated either on information or otherwise. It is clear from the said provisions that an officer in charge of a police station can start investigation either on information or otherwise." 20. In the aforesaid authority pronouncement, the Honourable Supreme Court referring to Section 154 and Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has held that it is not always necessary that the officer in charge of a police station shall commence investigation only on receipt of information. It has been declared therein by the Honourable Supreme Court that the receipt of information by a police officer is not a sine qua non for embarking upon investigation. In my considered opinion, the word "otherwise" found under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pregnant with wider meaning to include the information received from the anonymous sources and the discreet enquiry embarked upon by the Station House Officer. 21. In view of the above interpretation given to Section 157 of the Code of Criminal procedure and in the light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court, the Court finds with due respect to the learned Judge that the Judgment in Gnaneswaran v. State [2004 M.L.J.(Crl.)435] is per incuriam and not a stare decisis. Consequently it lacks precedential potentiality. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent has no authority to register a case based on his own information and the discreet enquiry conducted by him does not have any leg to stand upon. 22. It is found that there is no abuse of the process of the Court by launching prosecution as against the petitioner on the basis of the First Information Report registered by the second respondent. All the three grounds raised by the petitioner stand rejected and the petition seeking quashment of the charge sheet in Special Case No.1 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai (Crime No.2 of 1998 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai) stands dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2006 are also dismissed.