CRL.P/10956/2026 of SRI. SHYAM C TAMBE Vs THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE on 23 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.1.

2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Special Case No.99/2017, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the investigation was conducted without proper authority and in contravention of requirement of Section 17 of the Act of 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that there was a proper authorization in terms of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act of 1988.

5. Section 17 of the Act of 1988, reads as under: “17. Persons authorised to investigate.

HC-KAR

- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank, (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police; (b)in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;

(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or makes arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided further that an offence referred to in [clause (b) of sub-section (1)] [Substituted 'clause (e) of sub-section (1)' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.”

6. As can be noticed from the proviso to Section 17 of the Act of 1988, the State Government, by general order or special order, may authorise any person, any police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police to investigate into the

HC-KAR

matter without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be.

7. Learned counsel for the first respondent has also referred to the notification dated 21.04.2016 to contend that there was an authorization to investigate the matter and the said authorization enabled the Police Inspector to investigate the matter.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, would refer to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.391/2017 and connected matters, decided on 16.03.2023, to contend that such authorization is impermissible.

9. The Court has perused the said judgment. In the said judgment, the notification dated 13.03.2016 is referred to and the said notification authorized the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter, whereas in the instant case, the notification dated 21.04.2016 and authorizes the Inspector of Police to investigate the matter. That being the preposition

HC-KAR

of law, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners – accused is not applicable to the facts of this case.

10. Admittedly, the investigation has been carried out after 21.04.2016. Thus, there was a valid authorisation.

11. The petition is dismissed.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32