VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

902 DECISION - 500
(500)
P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 17, second proviso
Superintendent of Police authorising investigation
for offence under sec. 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 in
terms of sec. 17, proviso 2 is not required to write a
judgment or a reasoned order.
Mahavir Prasad Shrivastava vs. State of M.P.,
2000 Cri.L.J. MP 1232
The High Court observed that it is not the general law that in
every case when an order of authorisation to investigate is passed,
the name of the Superintendent of Police, name of the accused and
the name of the Investigating Officer are filled in blanks, and otherwise
the order is speaking, it is no order in the eye of law. That was never
the intention of the law. There is no special mechanism or form of an
order by the Superintendent of Police authorising investigation for
offence under sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
in terms of sec. 17 proviso 2 thereof, anywhere mentioned. At the
stage when investigation is being authorised, the full facts are not
before the S.P. Only the allegations are there. The necessity of
authorisation by a Superintendent of Police according to the 2nd
proviso arose because it has been thought in the public interest and
in the interest of the concerned public servant that at least a
responsible officer of the rank of S.P. should authorise investigation
and it should not start otherwise. The S.P. is not required to write a
judgment or a reasoned order. He is to satisfy himself that it is
necessary to investigate, but, he need not record the reason of that
satisfaction. Even otherwise validity of authorisation cannot be
allowed to be entered into at pre-charge stage.
(501)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — to be liberally construed
P.C. Act is a social legislation and should be liberally
construed so as to advance its object.