[Prevention Of Corruption Cases] Special Court Can Issue Suo Moto Directions For Further Investigation: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has recently held that the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases) at Alwar was empowered to issue suo moto directions for further investigation while dismissing an application preferred by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under Section 169 Cr. P.C. on the ground of refusal of prosecution sanction.

The special court had specifically directed ACB to inquire about the role of the Chairman of Alwar Diary, Bannaram Meena, on whose behalf the accused public servant is alleged to have accepted the bribe, as per the version of the complainant. Along with that, the High Court agreed with the special court's stance that a reconsideration of refusal to sanction prosecution must be done by a higher reviewing authority and not by the one itself that initially denied sanction.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed that the stage of taking cognizance has not yet been reached in the current case and the special judge was right in issuing directions for further investigation at the initial stage of filing chargesheet against the accused. The accused, Chetram, was the Personal Assistant & LDC of Alwar Dairy Chairman.

“…the legal position remains no more res integra about powers and jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue directions for further investigation. Such powers can be exercised suo moto as well… the Special Judge, acted well within its powers and jurisdiction to issue suo moto directions to the ACB for further investigation in the matter, mainly to find out the truth about role of Sh. Bannaram Meena, Chairman of the Alwar Dairy, against whom allegation was made in the complaint.”, the court clarified.

The bench sitting at Jaipur stressed about Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C which grants powers of further investigation even after the submission of final report under Section 173(2). According to Justice Bansal, the scheme of the Code contemplates that further investigation can be directed by the Magistrate upon concluding that the investigation is either lopsided or if it is seen that further investigation is necessary to reveal the truth and to unearth the hidden facts.

“…Term “further investigation” may not be misconstrued de-novo/fresh investigation or re-investigation, but further Investigation means additional, more and supplemental investigation in furtherance to the previous investigation already done…”, Justice Bansal noted in the order. To iterate the legal principles applicable, the court referred to the decisions in State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365 and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak (2013).

In Vinay Tyagi, it was held by the apex court as below:

“…It does not stand to reason that the legislature provided power of further investigation to the police even after filing a report, but intended to curtail the power of the Court to the extent that even where the facts of the case and the ends of justice demand, the Court can still not direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation which it could do on its own”.

The powers of a magistrate when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) r/w Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) would be available at all stages before the commencement of trial, it was held in another apex court decision of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) relied upon by the single judge bench.

In both instances of refusal of sanction to prosecute, it was done by the Board of Directors of Alwar Dairy Management, presided by the Chairman Bannaram, who was also under the scanner of ACB in the same matter for demanding bribe from the complainant. The court, therefore, refused to approve the refusal of prosecution sanction given under the president-ship of the accused chairman, that too in a red-handed trap case of ACB.

“…. when the ACB moved an application for re-consideration of the issue of refusal of the prosecution sanction, it was desirable and necessary for the management body of the Alwar Dairy, to place the application before the higher Authorities of Dairy Federation of the State Government, to reconsider the issue that whether refusal of grant of prosecution sanction is justified or the sanction for prosecution may be granted”, the High Court concurred with the findings of the special court judge.

In the end, the court noted that there are serious allegations against the accused public servant who is alleged to have accepted Rs 45,000/- as a bribe for granting permission to open a milk collection centre. While affirming the impugned order, the court also appreciated the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar, for applying an 'erudite, judicious approach in the matter'.

For Petitioner: Mr. Manish Gupta

For Respondent: Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

Case Title: Chetram v. State of Rajasthan through PP

Case No: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4934/2020

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 48

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment