Section 202 inquiry in public servant complaints upheld where material was sufficient to issue process.

A complaint by a public servant, filed through an authorised income tax officer in proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, was treated as distinct from a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, so the Magistrate was not required to examine the complainant and witnesses in the same manner. Section 202 CrPC was applied as an inquiry provision aimed at deciding whether sufficient ground exists to proceed, without any fixed mode of inquiry. On the complaint, accompanying documents, and admissions recorded in the statutory proceedings, the Court found the material sufficient to justify cognizance and issuance of process, and the challenge to the summoning order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order was liable to be set aside for want of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the complaint was filed by a public servant and the accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: The complaint was instituted by the Union of India through an authorised income tax officer as a public servant, in relation to proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The governing legal framework distinguishes complaints by public servants from private complaints under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the proviso to that provision exempts the Magistrate from examining the complainant and witnesses in such cases. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires an inquiry only to the extent necessary to decide whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and it does not prescribe any rigid or particular mode of inquiry. The complaint and accompanying documents, along with the admissions recorded during the statutory proceedings, were considered sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction for issuance of process.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed, as the Court found no illegality in taking cognizance and issuing process on the basis of the public servant complaint and the material placed before the Special Court.

---