- (1.) Challenge in this revision is the impugned judgement and order dated 18.8.1994 passed by Sri D. P. Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Special Case No. 7 of 1993 (State of U. P. Versus Suresh Kumar) under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly rejecting the prayer for discharge of the revisionist vide application dated 8.5.1994.
(2.) The revisionist was Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly on the date of the incident i. e. 3.6.1991. He had been apprehended while accepting bribe by laying trap as reenacted in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). F. I. R. was registered against him under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 3.6.1991 at Police Station Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly. The trap was laid by Inspector R. P. Mishra of Vigilance Department and investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer, Tejpal while charge sheet was submitted after investigation by Inspector Mohd. Vakil against the revisionist under the aforementioned sections. Later on charges were framed against the revisionist under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist moved an application for discharge which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 18.8.1994, hence this revision.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist has submitted that entire criminal proceedings under the Act against the revisionist is vitiated and deserves to be quashed inter alias on the following grounds: I)Because State Government has not authorized the Police Inspector, Tejpal to investigate the case and one another Inspector Mohd. Vakil to file charge sheet to act by any special or general order. Only Deputy Superintendent of Police was authorized to investigate the case under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as provided under Section 17-C of the Act, but in the instant case an officer of Inspector Rank has investigated the case and so the provisions being mandatory, it is illegal and against the provisions of law. II)Because Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1947 and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 stood repealed on 9.10.1989 by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, thus the saving clause cannot, in any manner, cure any illegality or irregularity committed in laying trap by an Inspector of Police in contravention of Section 17-C of the Act. It can only be made by Deputy Superintendent of Police under the new Act. III)Because Notification No. 1976-XXXX-BGL-100/1965 dated LKO September 16, 1965 was passed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as amended by Anti Corruption Act, 1964. It also met its death on the date when Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So, no benefit of Section 30 of the Act can be extended in the facts and circumstances of the present case. IV)Because in the absence of any fresh notification by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 17-C of the Act, the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to either lay any trap or investigate any case under the present Act. Proviso (2) Section 17 of the Act provides that Inspector of Police can investigate and effect any arrest only, if he is so authorized by the State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Since there is no such general or special order in this behalf by the State Government, the entire action adopted by the Inspector of Police including laying trap, investigation, submission of charge sheet per se in the present case is wholly without any sanction of law. V)Because the provisions made in the two enactments being inconsistent, as is evident from the scheme of acts, sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act would not save the notifications issued under the 1947 Act.;