Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a police constable, was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs.18,000/- in a trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai. He filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The challenge was not on merits but on the ground that the ACB is not a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC, and therefore the FIR registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACB) was illegal. The petitioner also argued that the practice in other parts of Maharashtra is to register such FIRs with the local police station, and the different procedure in Mumbai violates Article 14. The court examined the Government Resolution dated 23-10-1961, which declared the ACB as a police station and its officers as officers incharge. The court held that the ACB is a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC, and the registration of FIR by its officer is valid. The court also rejected the Article 14 argument, stating that the procedure is based on administrative convenience and not discriminatory. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Station - Definition - Section 2(s) CrPC - Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) is a police station - The court held that the ACB, Mumbai, is a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC by virtue of Government Resolution dated 23-10-1961, which declared the ACB as a police station and its officers as officers incharge. Therefore, registration of FIR by the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to ACB is valid. (Paras 1-3)
B) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 - No violation - The court rejected the argument that different procedures in Mumbai and other parts of the State violate Article 14, as the procedure is based on administrative convenience and not discriminatory. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Anti Corruption Bureau is a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the registration of FIR by the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to ACB is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the Anti Corruption Bureau is a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC by virtue of Government Resolution dated 23-10-1961, and the registration of FIR by the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to ACB is valid. The argument of violation of Article 14 was rejected.
Law Points
- Anti Corruption Bureau is a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC
- Registration of FIR by officer incharge of ACB is valid
- Government Resolution dated 23-10-1961 confers police station status
- No violation of Article 14
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (01) 92
Criminal Writ Petition No.4425 of 2012
Satyavrat Joshi for Petitioner, Revati Mohite-Dere (PP) and J.P. Yagnik (APP) for State
Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR under Prevention of Corruption Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Filing Reason
Alleged illegality in registration of FIR by Anti Corruption Bureau which is not a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC
Issues
Whether the Anti Corruption Bureau is a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Whether the registration of FIR by the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to Anti Corruption Bureau is valid?
Whether the different procedure followed in Mumbai for registration of corruption cases violates Article 14 of the Constitution?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Anti Corruption Bureau is not a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC, hence FIR registration by its officer is illegal.
Petitioner argued that in other parts of Maharashtra, FIRs under PC Act are registered with local police stations, and the different procedure in Mumbai violates Article 14.
State argued that Government Resolution dated 23-10-1961 declares ACB as a police station and its officers as officers incharge, making the FIR valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, is a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by virtue of Government Resolution dated 23-10-1961, which declared it as a police station and its officers as officers incharge. Therefore, registration of FIR by an officer incharge of ACB is valid and not illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The challenge in this Petition is not on merits.
He submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has not been conferred with the status of a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 31st October 2012 by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.4425 of 2012 before Bombay High Court seeking quashing of FIR. Petition heard and dismissed on 29th January 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 2(s), Section 154, Section 482
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 7, Section 13(1)(d), Section 13(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 5
