1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No.217/2010 (Dil Prakash Meena Vs. C.B.I.) Date of Order : 10.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.R.K.Jain, for the petitioner. Mr.T.P.Sharma, for CBI. By the Court: Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2009, this revision petition has been preferred. It is stated that an application under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) was moved by the petitioner stating that investigation in the matter was conducted by an incompetent authority, thus the whole investigation vitiates and matter deserves to be dropped as a consequence thereof. The Superintendent of Police alone is competent to make investigation as per the provisions of law, however, in the present matter, the authority subordinate to the Superintendent of Police made investigation. No authorization with reasons was passed before conducting the investigation. It is also stated that the material collected during investigation does not give correct statement of fact. The property belonging to other has been taken to be the property of present petitioner, thus to make the things straight, petitioner had produced statement of account and 2 property, however, that was not taken into consideration in an erroneous manner though it was sufficient to show the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of illegal investigation. To substantiate the arguments, the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 (SC) 604 has been relied apart from the judgment reported in AIR 1984 (SC) 718 (A.R.Antulay's Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak). Referring the facts of the aforesaid cases, it is stated that if the investigation is conducted by the incompetent authority, the whole proceeding deserves to be set aside. The Court below erroneously taken statement of facts to be documents at the instance of the petitioner before framing of the charges, which otherwise was an error on the part of the Court below. The prayer is thus, made to quash the order so as the proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for CBI on the other hand submits that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1988 has not been taken as mandatory unless it is projected that due to investigation conducted by the incompetent authority, the prejudice has been caused to the accused. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported Cr.L.R. (2006) 762, it is emphasized that mere conducting investigation by the incompetent authority does not vitiate the whole proceedings. So far as the issue of filing of the statement by the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be looked into in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme 3 Court reported in 2005 Cr.L.R. 169 titled Devendra Nath Padhi Vs. State of Orisa and the case reported in Cr.L.R. 2000 (SC) 443. It is stated that in these cases, the Court held that the material placed by the prosecution alone would be considered at the stage of framing charge, thus no other material can be considered in view of the aforesaid judgments. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. So far as the issue of conducting investigation by the incompetent authority is concerned, the Court below has elaborately disclosed the issue in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. SC 762. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provision is not mandatory but is directive in nature and unless prejudice shown by the accused, the investigation cannot be discarded so as to drop the proceedings. The petitioner has otherwise filed a statement showing the illegality in the investigation but a material other than placed by the prosecution, cannot be considered at the stage of framing charge in view of the catena of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. Thus, I do not find any error in the impugned order of the Court below, hence the revision petition 4 so preferred by the petitioner is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the order herein will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to raise all the available grounds while the matter is heard for framing of the charges. If he is in a position to show from the material produced by the prosecution that the investigation is not properly conducted and it has otherwise caused prejudice to the petitioner, the Court below is expected to consider the aforesaid aspect and decide the issue accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.1