STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARNEK SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
February 15,2002
STATE OF PUNJAB
Appellant
VERSUS
HARNEK SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UNIVERSAL IMPORTS AGENCY V. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS [REFERRED]KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD. AND ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED]
CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND ANR.,ETC. V. KARAM CHAND THAPARETC. [REFERRED]
HASAN NURANI MALAK VS. S M ISM AIL ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER NAGPUR [REFERRED]
NEEL ALIAS NIRANJAN MAJUMDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA [REFERRED]
NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
Ram Chandra Sao VS. State of Bihar [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-4-95] [REFERRED TO]DHANBAD COAL BOARD EMPLOYEES CO. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-6-66] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. P.SARAVANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-10-196] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. MAGNUM FIBERS PVT. LTD. VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
A MUKHERJEE COMPANY VS. COVENTRY METALS PVT LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
MONA D/O MD SUBHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P P [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD., BANGALORE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE [LAWS(SC)-2015-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. SURJAKUMAR OKRAM [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
MAGNUM DEVELOPERS AND ORS. VS. LAL SHAH BABA DARGAH TRUST AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
AIJ-PT 1715650 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA VS. RAM KRIPAL PRASAD PATNA HIGH COURT [LAWS(PAT)-2008-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
M CHINA GOPALA KRISHNA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2004-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHIK KESHAVLAL LAKHANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-398] [REFERRED TO]
SHIREEN DADY ADENWALLA AND ORS. VS. YASMIN DINYAR ILAVIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-224] [REFERRED TO]
SEWAK SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2005-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
J VENKATESWARLU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2002-4-62] [FOLLOWED ON]
CHETAN DAS VS. D C S C [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPAL CHANDER BHASKER VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2002-7-156] [REFERRED]
BAL BHARATI PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURDEV SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-875] [REFERRED]
HARKESH CHAND VS. KRISHAN GOPAL MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. C NAJEEB [LAWS(KER)-2004-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. HAMEED LEATHER FINISHERS VS. M/S. ASSOCIATED CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES KANPUR PVT. LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-111] [REFERRED TO]
RHOMBIC LABOURATORY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
HASMUKHRAI ARJANBHAI PARMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-258] [REFERRED TO]
NAJAKAT ALI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-134] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
M CHINA GOPALA KRISHNA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-10-269] [REFERRED TO]
STATE U T CHANDIGARH VS. INDERPAL MAHAJAN [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
P M SINGH VS. C B I [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-293] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-81] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN DAS VS. DEPUTY CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-230] [REFERRED TO]
PETI RAM VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KUMAR GARG VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-9-171] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VS. DUJODWALA RESINS & TERPENES LTD & ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2019-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUT BIHARI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. VISHWANATH KAYAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM CHANDRA SHARMA VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2011-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sethi, J. -
(1.)In all these appeals, the FIRs and subsequent proceedings pending against the respondents under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act") were quashed by the High Court in exercise of the powers vesting in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused-respondents had been apprehended while accepting the bribe by laying the trap under the 1988 Act. The High Court found that as the investigations had not been conducted by the authorised officers under the 1988 Act, the same were vitiated and deserved to be quashed.
(2.)The questions of law to be adjudicated upon in these appeals are :
(1) Whether the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed) empowering and authorising Inspector of Police to investigate the cases registered under the said Act are not saved under the saving provisions of the reenacted Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2) Whether the aforesaid notifications not being inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted Act continue to be in force and be deemed to have been issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 till aforesaid notifications are superseded or specifically withdrawn."
(3.)Most of the facts in these appeals are not disputed. It is agreed that during the subsistence of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1947 Act"), the Government of Punjab issued a notification on 9-7-1968 authorising Inspectors of Police, for the time being serving in the State Vigilance Department or who may be posted in future to serve with the said agency to investigate the offences under the 1947 Act within the State of Punjab so long as they remain posted in the said agency. In supersession of the notifications dated 9th July, 1968, the Government of Punjab issued another notification on 12-8-1968 under Section 5A(1) of the 1947 Act authorising such inspectors of police to investigate the offences under the Act even beyond the State of Punjab and the restrictions of investigation within the State of Punjab were removed. The 1947 Act was repealed on 9-9-1988 by re-enacting the 1988 Act being Act No. 49 of 1988. FIRs against the respondents were, concededly, registered after the coming into force the 1988 Act and the investigation conducted by the Inspectors of Police who had been authorised to investigate the offences by notifications issued under the repealed Act of 1947. The accused-respondents filed petitions under S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing the FIRs registered and the proceedings pending against them on the ground that the inspectors who had investigated the cases were not the authorised officers in terms of Section 17 of 1988 Act.
(2.)The questions of law to be adjudicated upon in these appeals are :
(1) Whether the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed) empowering and authorising Inspector of Police to investigate the cases registered under the said Act are not saved under the saving provisions of the reenacted Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2) Whether the aforesaid notifications not being inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted Act continue to be in force and be deemed to have been issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 till aforesaid notifications are superseded or specifically withdrawn."
(3.)Most of the facts in these appeals are not disputed. It is agreed that during the subsistence of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1947 Act"), the Government of Punjab issued a notification on 9-7-1968 authorising Inspectors of Police, for the time being serving in the State Vigilance Department or who may be posted in future to serve with the said agency to investigate the offences under the 1947 Act within the State of Punjab so long as they remain posted in the said agency. In supersession of the notifications dated 9th July, 1968, the Government of Punjab issued another notification on 12-8-1968 under Section 5A(1) of the 1947 Act authorising such inspectors of police to investigate the offences under the Act even beyond the State of Punjab and the restrictions of investigation within the State of Punjab were removed. The 1947 Act was repealed on 9-9-1988 by re-enacting the 1988 Act being Act No. 49 of 1988. FIRs against the respondents were, concededly, registered after the coming into force the 1988 Act and the investigation conducted by the Inspectors of Police who had been authorised to investigate the offences by notifications issued under the repealed Act of 1947. The accused-respondents filed petitions under S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing the FIRs registered and the proceedings pending against them on the ground that the inspectors who had investigated the cases were not the authorised officers in terms of Section 17 of 1988 Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.