SRI NAGARAJ SHELAGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 4 -

The provision of Section 17 contemplates that the police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police can investigate offences covered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also given my anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by this Court in batch of writ petitions which has decided the issue relating to power of Police Inspector in registering a crime for the offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. It would be useful for this Court to refer to paras 14 to 16 which reads as under:

"14. The respondent - Lokayuktha has also placed on record the authorization given by the Dy.SP under proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to register and investigate the offence under the provision of the said Act. Proviso to Section 17 of the Act specifies that the police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police may investigate such offences if authorized by the State Government. The unamended proviso

- 5 -

to Section 17 of the Act indicates that an offence referred to in Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. To put it simply, the offence under Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be investigated only on an order passed by the Superintendent of Police. In the absence of any power to authorize the registration of the FIR, the order passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned authorizing the Police Inspector to register the FIR is one without authority of law.

15. The respondent - Lokayuktha has not placed any material before this Court to substantiate that the FIRs were registered by the Police Inspector/s at the time when the officer in charge of the police station i.e., Dy.SP/s were not available in the police station.

16. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view that the respondent - Lokayuktha having not placed any material to establish that the FIRs were registered by the Police Inspector, in the absence of the Dy.SP at the relevant point of time, the registration of the FIRs is one without authority of law."

- 6 -

4. On examining the records, it is clearly evident that respondent who is in the rank of Police Inspector has filed a suo motu complaint and has undertaken to investigate the matter. The entire exercise done by the respondent while registering the crime clearly lacks authority and the same is found to be contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the light of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench relating to the same incident, in absence of any power to authorize the registration of FIR, the petitioner is entitled to relief and is bound to succeed in the case.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has tried to persuade this Court to take cognizance of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in the case of

Sri T.R.Shivaramu vs. Anti Corruption Bureau, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Bangalore Urban Police Station¹. This Court is not inclined to accede to the said ILR 2018 Kar 2318

1

- 7 -

proposition. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta that the Government having declared the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police as Police Station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., 1973, the Police Inspector attached to the Anti Corruption Bureau as officer in-charge of the Police Station cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in similar cases.

6. Respecting the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court, particularly those addressing recurring legal issues such as the powers of a police inspector in registering crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is imperative in upholding judicial propriety and discipline. The principle of stare decisis, which emphasizes adherence to precedent, guides this imperative. Firstly, judicial propriety necessitates honoring the decisions of Coordinate Benches, to ensure consistency and predictability in the application of legal principles. The judiciary's credibility relies on maintaining a coherent and

- 8 -

uniform approach to legal interpretation, especially concerning recurring issues like those involving the powers of law enforcement officials. Secondly, judicial discipline mandates adherence to established legal principles and precedents, as articulated by Coordinate Benches. By respecting and following the precedents set by previous judgments, this Court upholds the rule of law and fosters public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality and reliability.

7. In the specific context of the powers of a police inspector in registering crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has undoubtedly addressed this issue on multiple occasions, establishing a jurisprudential framework that guides legal practice and interpretation. These judgments serve as authoritative interpretations of the law, binding on subsequent cases and courts, including this one.

- 9 -

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UTTAR

PRADESH JAL VIDYUT (S) NIGAM LIMITED V.

BALBIR SINGH ², has observed as under:

"...learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making comments upon the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand was not acting as an appellate court against the judicial order passed by the High Court of Allahabad..."

"Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it."

9. Therefore, in light of the principles of judicial propriety and discipline, this Court is duty-bound to

(2021) 13 SCC 262

2

- 10 -

respect and adhere to the orders and precedents set by its Coordinate Bench regarding the powers of a police inspector in registering crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Any departure from such precedent would not only undermine the integrity of the judiciary but also create confusion and uncertainty in the application of the law. Therefore, the counsel submission that there is delegation of authority and reliance placed on the police diary pertaining to this case also cannot be looked into.

10. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that respondent had no authority to register the crime. The same is without authority and contrary to amended provision to Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

- 11 -

(ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.3/2016 vide Annexure-A and the suo motu complaint dated 29.09.2016 vide Annexure-B and all further proceedings thereof are hereby quashed;

(iii) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 0