Case Note & Summary
The appellant, an Assistant Station Master at Ateli, was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for accepting illegal gratification of Rs.10 from a passenger (P.W.3) on May 11, 1967. The passenger, a member of the Armed Forces traveling with his wife and child on a railway concession pass, was detained at Ateli station on May 9, 1967 by the appellant over alleged excess luggage and fare. The appellant demanded Rs.45 or more but agreed to accept Rs.10 as a bribe, and the passenger left his bedding as security until payment. The passenger reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, who instructed the Superintendent of Police; the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Magistrate (P.W.5) organized a trap. A ten-rupee note was marked, and P.W.3 handed it to the appellant; the marked note was recovered from the appellant's right hand. The Sub Divisional Magistrate lodged an FIR, and after investigation by a Deputy Superintendent of Police having railway jurisdiction and obtaining sanction (Ex. PD/1), the appellant was charged. The Special Judge convicted him, and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised four main contentions: invalid sanction, illegal investigation by a trap laid by an Executive Magistrate, adverse inference from non-examination of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and reliance on accomplice testimony and improper presumption under Section 4. The Court rejected all contentions. On sanction, it held that the Divisional Officer (Senior Scale) who granted sanction had delegated power under Rule 134 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code to appoint and dismiss Class III servants; Rule 3(a) was not applicable to appointments and dismissals, and the objection was not raised earlier. On investigation, Section 5A only requires investigation by an officer of rank not below Deputy Superintendent of Police; laying a trap before registration of case is not part of investigation, and an Executive Magistrate can lay trap. The Court found no prejudice. On witnesses, public officials in traps are not automatically accomplices; the magistrate was not a full judicial officer, and no inducement was offered. The trial court's discretion to allow cross-examination of a hostile witness was upheld. On presumption, even if Section 4 presumption was not attracted, the court could draw ordinary inference from recovery of marked note from the appellant's hand without credible explanation. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Delegated Power to Appoint and Dismiss - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5A; Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rule 134 and Rule 3(a) - Sanction granted by Divisional Officer (Senior Scale) was upheld; his delegated power to appoint Class III servants drawing pay up to Rs.250 and posts in pay scales up to Rs.380 included power to dismiss; contention that only Divisional Personnel Officer had authority under Rule 3(a) was rejected as not raised earlier and because 'Establishment matters' do not include appointments/dismissals. Held that sanction is valid and objection cannot be allowed for first time in Supreme Court (Pages 802-803). B) Criminal Law - Investigation - Trap by Executive Magistrate - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5A - Section 5A only prohibits police officer below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police from investigating; laying a trap before registration of case is not part of investigation; Executive Magistrate or other public officer may lay trap. Held that investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police after trap was valid and caused no prejudice (Pages 803-804). C) Evidence - Witnesses - Accomplice/Quasi-Accomplice and Hostile Witness - No specific statutory provision cited - Public officials participating in traps are not automatically accomplices; their testimony may be accepted; trial court has discretion to permit cross-examination of hostile witness. Held that conviction can rest on such testimony and no adverse inference from non-examination of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Pages 804-806). D) Evidence - Presumptions - Common Course Inference - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 4 - Even if statutory presumption unavailable, court may draw most probable inference from recovery of marked currency note from accused's hand without credible explanation; passenger's alleged misuse of pass no defence. Held that conviction is justified (Pages 806-807).
Issue of Consideration
Whether prosecution was invalid for want of competent sanction; whether investigation was illegal due to trap laid by Executive Magistrate; whether adverse inference should be drawn from non-examination of Deputy Superintendent of Police; whether uncorroborated testimony of accomplices/quasi-accomplices could be foundation for conviction; whether presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was correctly drawn.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200 confirmed.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution valid when granted by officer with delegated power to appoint and dismiss
- objection to sanction cannot be raised for first time in Supreme Court unless special circumstances shown
- Section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 only bars police officer below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police from investigating
- laying trap before registration of case is not part of investigation
- Executive Magistrate or other public officer may lay trap to catch corrupt official
- public officials participating in traps are not automatically accomplices
- hostile witness may be cross-examined by party calling him with court's permission
- even without statutory presumption under Section 4
- court may draw common course inference from recovery of marked currency note from accused's hand without credible explanation
