IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34628 of 2008 RAJIV KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.C.B.I. ----------- 5 12.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. North, Patna in Spl.3/06 / R/C- 3(A)/06, arising out of CBI/ACB/ Patna Case No.RCPAT 2006 A 0003, dated 31.1.2006 whereby the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance against the petitioner under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the investigation of the case by an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police itself is without jurisdiction and as such the entire material collected in the case diary and subsequent cognizance based on it is no nest. In support of his contention, he relied upon section 17(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 which states that only Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank can investigate the case in respect of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submits that the alleged offence would fall under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act and only such police personnel who is duly authorized by a police officer not below the rank of 2 Superintendent of Police, can investigate the case. He further submits that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner The amount involved relates to two petty claims each below an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the case of the petitioner would not come under the purview of section 13(1)(e) of the Act and even charge sheet has not been submitted under the aforesaid provision. As such due authorization from an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police is not a must for investigation. He further submits that the case of the petitioner would come under the purview of section 17(a) of the Act as it is being investigated by C.B.I. The cases under the P.C. Act, which are taken over by C.B.I., an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police is competent to make investigation. It is not in dispute that the case has been entrusted to the C.B.I. and has been investigated by an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police. Section 17 of the Act relates to investigation and persons who are authorized to investigate cases under P.C. Act. Section 17(a) states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment , no police officer below the rank of an Inspector of Police will conduct the investigation. The case has been taken over by the C.B.I. for investigation. In such circumstances the person authorized to conduct the investigation would be covered under section 17(a) of the Act. The issue in question is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 3 KHAN the case of State by Central Bureau of Investigation Vs S.Bangarappa, reported in (2001) SCC 369 held in paragraphs 10 and 11 that the cases which is investigated by the C.B.I. would fall under section 17(a) of the Act and as such the Inspector of Police would be competent to investigate the case. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that only the cases which are not covered under section 17(a) and 17(b), an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police alone would be competent to investigate. In the circumstances, I hold that the Inspector of Police (CBI) who investigated the instant case was competent to conduct investigation under section 17(a) of the P.C. Act. So far as merit of the case is concerned, it would appear from perusal of the F.I.R. that the Surveyor assessed the loss of TV set to the tune of Rs.14,850/- and Rs.14,600/-. It would appear from the charge sheet that the repairing shop namely Randhir Electronics, Koshi Chowk, Saharsa which gave the assessment and cash memo was not in existence. In this view of the matter, though the small amount is involved is not big, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)