Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal by special leave against a Delhi High Court judgment confirming the conviction of a Head Constable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Indian Penal Code. The accused had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from a street vendor who sold food without a licence. The street vendor, Som Nath, complained to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, who laid a trap with two independent witnesses. A ten-rupee currency note was treated with the complainant and handed to the accused on demand; the note was recovered from the accused's pocket and its number tallied. The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 IPC, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence but reduced the fine to Rs 100. In the Supreme Court, the appellant raised two contentions: first, that the investigation was conducted by a Sub-Inspector in violation of Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and second, that the prosecution witnesses were influenced by an enemy Sub-Inspector. The Court rejected the second contention as the lower courts had accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the defence evidence. On the first contention, the Court examined the evidence and found that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was in complete charge of the investigation, never withdrew from the case, and the statements and reports written by the Sub-Inspector were on the Deputy Superintendent's dictation and under his supervision. The Court held that while Section 5A is mandatory regarding the rank of the investigating officer, it does not require every investigative step to be done personally; assistance of subordinates is permissible. The Court further relied on H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi and Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh to hold that an illegality or irregularity in investigation does not vitiate trial unless miscarriage of justice or prejudice is shown, and particularly where no objection was raised before trial commenced. Since the appellant did not raise the objection during trial and no prejudice was demonstrated, the trial and conviction were not illegal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Investigation under Section 5A - Mandatory Nature and Permissible Assistance - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5A, 5(2), 5(1)(d) - The court considered whether investigation must be personally conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police or whether assistance from a Sub-Inspector was permissible - The court held that Section 5A is mandatory as to the rank of investigating officer, but it does not require every investigative step to be done personally; the officer may take assistance of deputies and need not write every statement himself if done under his dictation and supervision - Held that there was no irregularity or illegality in the investigation because the Deputy Superintendent was in complete charge and the Sub-Inspector only wrote statements and reports on his dictation (Pages 280-283). B) Criminal Trial - Effect of Irregularity or Illegality in Investigation - Prejudice and Objection Requirement - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 342 - The court addressed whether violation of Section 5A during investigation vitiates trial and conviction - Relying on H.N. Rishbud and Munna Lal, the court held that an illegality in investigation does not affect the competence of the court or vitiate trial unless miscarriage of justice or prejudice is shown; where no objection was raised before trial and the case proceeded to termination, the invalidity of preceding investigation cannot be grounds to set aside conviction - Held that appellant did not raise objection at trial and no prejudice shown, so conviction was upheld (Pages 280-283).
Issue of Consideration
Whether investigation was conducted in violation of Section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; and whether such violation, if any, rendered the trial and conviction illegal.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed by Supreme Court
Law Points
- Section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 mandates investigation by officer not below rank of Deputy Superintendent but every step need not be personally performed
- assistance of subordinates and dictation of statements permissible
- irregularity or illegality in investigation does not vitiate trial unless miscarriage of justice and prejudice shown
- objection to investigation must be raised before trial to be considered
- cognizance and trial not affected by preceding investigation illegality if no prejudice
