Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a clerk in the office of the District Relief and Rehabilitation Office, Meerut, was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The facts found by the courts below established that the appellant accepted Rs. 20 as illegal gratification from one Malekchand, who had applied for allotment of a house, with a view to getting a house allotted to him. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court by special leave. The first contention raised was that the investigation was conducted by a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in contravention of Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and therefore the conviction was vitiated. The Court relied on H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi and held that generally a conviction is not vitiated merely because there was not strict compliance with the provisions regarding investigation. The Court noted that the objection regarding investigation was not raised at an early stage before the trial court or the High Court; therefore it could not be permitted to be raised at the Supreme Court stage. The second contention was that the Assistant Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction because the case was triable only by a Special Judge under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. The Court held that the case had been committed to the Court of Session before the Act came into force, and Section 10 of that Act transferred only cases pending before Magistrates to the Special Judge, not cases already pending in the Court of Session. The Court followed the earlier decision in Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The State. The third contention related to the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that the High Court did not raise any presumption but relied on direct evidence, as the defence that the money was taken to purchase wheat was disbelieved and the prosecution evidence that it was taken as bribe was accepted. The Court also rejected the plea for leniency on sentence, observing that one year imprisonment for corruption by a public servant was not unduly severe. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Trial - Investigation by Officer Below Rank - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 5-A - Breach of mandatory provision does not vitiate conviction unless objection raised at early stage and defect not cured - Supreme Court relied on H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi and held that generally conviction is not vitiated by investigation by officer below Deputy Superintendent of Police; appellant failed to show objection raised at earliest stage before trial court or High Court, so cannot raise at Supreme Court (Paras 2-3). B) Criminal Trial - Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 Section 10 - Section 10 transfers only cases pending before Magistrates to Special Judge; cases committed to Court of Session before Act continue there - Held Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction; relied on Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. State (Paras 4). C) Prevention of Corruption - Presumption under Section 4 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 4 - Prosecution must prove acceptance of gratification as motive or reward; courts below found direct evidence, no presumption raised - High Court did not rely on presumption but on direct evidence; defence of repayment for wheat disbelieved (Paras 5). D) Sentencing - Corruption by Public Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 5(2) and Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 161 - One year rigorous imprisonment concurrent not excessive - Appeal dismissed (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether investigation by officer below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police vitiated conviction; whether Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try case after Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952; whether courts below erred in appreciation of proof for presumption under Section 4 Prevention of Corruption Act; whether sentence was excessive
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment on each count (concurrent) upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 5-A Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 requires investigation by officer not below Deputy Superintendent of Police but violation does not generally vitiate conviction if objection not raised early
- Section 10 Criminal Law Amendment Act
- 1952 transfers only cases pending before Magistrates to Special Judge
- not cases committed to Court of Session before Act
- presumption under Section 4 Prevention of Corruption Act not raised
- conviction under Section 5(2) and Section 161 IPC on concurrent findings
- sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for corruption by public servant not excessive
