Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal revision application filed by the accused, a public servant working as a Garrison Engineer with the Military Engineering Service at Vasco, Goa, against the order of the Special Judge, Margao, framing charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations were that on or about 19th August 2002, the accused demanded and on 20th August 2002 accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5000 from a partner of a private firm as motive or reward for recommending extension of time for completion of construction works for the Navy at Nofra, Goa. A case was registered and investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Special Judge had framed charges on 18th November 2004 after rejecting the accused's objections that the investigation should have been carried out by the Central Vigilance Commission and that the sanction order was defective. In the High Court, the accused raised two principal submissions. First, that the investigation by the CBI was without jurisdiction because Section 8(1)(d) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 mandated that the Commission inquire or cause investigation into complaints of corruption against certain categories of officials. Second, that the sanction order dated 24th September 2003 reflected non-application of mind and could not have been signed by an Under Secretary on behalf of the President. The court examined the legislative history of the CVC Act, the object behind its enactment following the Vineet Narain case and the Vohra Committee report, and the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It noted that while the CVC Act vested superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment insofar as it relates to investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Commission, Section 17 of the PC Act specifically authorised CBI (Delhi Special Police Establishment) officers of the rank of Inspector to investigate. The court held that the CVC Act did not exclude CBI's jurisdiction but conferred an additional avenue for inquiry or investigation. Therefore, the investigation by CBI was valid. On the sanction issue, the court observed that under Section 19 of the PC Act, sanction is to be granted by the Central Government in the case of a Central Government employee, and the CVC's function under Section 8(1)(f) is merely to review the progress of sanction applications, not to grant sanction itself. The court found no illegality in the sanction order and concluded that the learned Special Judge had not erred in framing the charges. The revision application was dismissed in its entirety.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Jurisdiction of CBI and CVC - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 17; Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, Section 8(1)(d); Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 4 - The accused contended that investigation should have been conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission under Section 8(1)(d) of the CVC Act, 2003, not by CBI. The court, after tracing the legislative history, held that Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 authorizes CBI to investigate, and the CVC Act provides additional powers to inquire, but does not exclude CBI's investigative competence. Therefore, the CBI investigation was legally valid. Held that the CBI investigation is proper and the objection was rightly rejected. (Paras 5, 7-14) B) Prevention of Corruption - Sanction for Prosecution - Competent Authority for Sanction - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 19; Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, Section 8(1)(f) - The accused argued that sanction for prosecution should have been obtained from the CVC, but the court held that under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, sanction is to be granted by the Central Government or the competent removal authority, and the CVC's function under Section 8(1)(f) is limited to reviewing the progress of sanction applications. The Special Judge correctly rejected the contention. Held that the sanction order was valid and the revision dismissed. (Paras 13, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether investigation by central bureau of investigation was valid in view of section 8(1)(d) of the central vigilance commission act 2003; whether the sanction order for prosecution was invalid due to non application of mind or being signed by an under secretary.
Final Decision
The revision application was dismissed. The order of the Special Judge, Margao dated 18.11.2004 framing charges against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was upheld.
Law Points
- Investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act can be conducted by CBI irrespective of CVC's power to inquire or cause investigation
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 PC Act is to be granted by competent government/authority and not CVC
- CVC's role under Section 8(1)(f) is limited to reviewing progress of sanction applications
- Superintendence of DSPE vests in CVC only for PC Act offences and in Central Government for other matters
