VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III

722 DECISION - 356
The Superintendent of Police or any police officer of above
rank while granting permission to a non-designated police officer in
exercise of his power under the second proviso to sec. 5A(1) of P.C.
Act, 1947 (corresponding to second proviso to sec. 17 of P.C.Act,
1988), should satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient
reasons to entrust the investigation with such police officer of a lower
rank and record his reasons for doing so; because the very object of
the legislature in enacting sec. 5A is to see that the investigation of
offences punishable under secs. 161, 165 or 165A IPC as well as
those under sec. 5 of P.C.Act, 1947 (corresponding to secs. 7, 11,
12, 13 of P.C.Act, 1988) should be done ordinarily by the officers
designated in clauses (a) to (d) of sec. 5A(1). The exception should
be for adequate reasons which should be disclosed on the face of
the order. In this connection, it is worthy to note that the strict
compliance with sec. 5A(1) becomes absolutely necessary, because
sec. 5A(1) expressly prohibits police officers, below certain ranks,
from investigating into offences under secs. 161, 165 and 165A IPC
and under sec. 5 of P.C.Act without orders of Magistrates specified
therein or without authorisation of the State Government in that behalf
and from effecting arrests for those offences without a warrant.
Where the order directing an Inspector was one word order
“investigate” in respect of offences under sec. 5(1)(e) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and secs. 161 and 165 of Penal Code, the Inspector
was not clothed with valid legal authority to take up the investigation
and proceed with the same within the meaning of sec. 5A(1) of the
P.C.Act.
Where investigation was yet not proceeded with and the
complaint contains serious allegations, even if laid on account of
personal animosity, is not liable to be discarded when allegations are
yet to be tested and weighed after evidence is collected.