Mandatory prior judicial permission for lower-rank police investigation requires independent application of mind and valid investigative commencement before approval.

Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a mandatory safeguard requiring prior judicial permission before a police officer below the designated rank could investigate. The Magistrate had to apply an independent mind to relevant material and could not act mechanically; on the material described, no reasons or consideration of necessity were shown, so the permission was invalid. Investigation was also held to have commenced before permission was obtained because the Sub-Inspector had already taken investigative steps, including questioning the accused, searching persons, recovering marked notes, preparing memoranda, and collecting evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order authorising a police officer below the designated rank to investigate was valid under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and whether the investigation had in fact commenced before such permission was obtained.

Analysis: Section 5A was treated as a mandatory safeguard enacted to protect public servants from harassment and to ensure that investigation by a subordinate officer takes place only on a proper judicial order. The Magistrate was required to apply an independent mind to the relevant material and could not act mechanically or surrender discretion to the police. On the material before the Court, the application and the endorsement granting permission disclosed no reasons or material showing that the Magistrate satisfied himself about the necessity of entrusting the investigation to the Sub-Inspector. The prosecution also failed to produce evidence to show that the Magistrate had considered the relevant circumstances before granting permission. On the second question, the sequence of steps taken by the Sub-Inspector after receiving the complaint showed that investigation had already begun when he proceeded with the trap, questioned the accused, searched the persons concerned, recovered the marked notes and other articles, prepared memoranda, and collected evidence before obtaining the later permission.

Conclusion: The permission was invalid for non-compliance with Section 5A, and the investigation had commenced before permission was obtained.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's direction setting aside the trial order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory requirement that a lower-ranking police officer investigate only on prior judicial is mandatory, must be exercised on relevant material by an independent judicial mind, and investigation begins when the police start collecting evidence and taking investigative steps after receipt of information about an offence.

---