Investigation by prescribed-rank officer remains valid in substance when effective control is retained and no prejudice is shown.

A statutory requirement that investigation be conducted by an officer of prescribed rank was treated as mandatory, but a defect in investigation does not by itself vitiate the trial or conviction unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown. On the facts, the Deputy Superintendent of Police remained in effective control, directed the investigation, recorded key steps, arranged the raid, and supervised seizure papers, so the investigation was not treated as unauthorized. The prosecution evidence was also accepted as trustworthy, with the complainant, panch witnesses, and investigating officer supporting recovery of the tainted currency note, and the allegation of enmity or tutoring was not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the investigation was vitiated for breach of the statutory requirement that the case be investigated by an officer of the prescribed rank; (ii) Whether the prosecution evidence was unreliable because of alleged enmity and tutoring.

Issue (i): Whether the investigation was vitiated for breach of the statutory requirement that the case be investigated by an officer of the prescribed rank.

Analysis: The statutory requirement governing investigation was mandatory, but an illegality or irregularity in investigation does not by itself nullify the trial or conviction unless it has caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused. On the facts, the evidence showed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police remained in charge of the investigation, directed the steps taken, recorded the complaint and endorsements, arranged the raid, and prepared the seizure papers. The mere fact that some statements or memoranda were written by a subordinate under his dictation and supervision did not mean that the investigation was conducted by an unauthorized officer.

Conclusion: The investigation was not vitiated, and the conviction was not liable to be set aside on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution evidence was unreliable because of alleged enmity and tutoring.

Analysis: The testimony of the complainant, the panch witnesses, and the investigating officer was accepted by the trial court and the High Court as trustworthy and supported by the recovery of the tainted currency note. The defence evidence was rejected as unconvincing, and the allegation that the prosecution was engineered by an enemy was not established. No material was shown to displace the concurrent appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution evidence was rightly accepted and the challenge to its credibility failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained because the investigation was held to be lawful in substance and the prosecution case was proved by reliable evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory defect in investigation does not invalidate a conviction unless it has caused prejudice or miscarriage of justice, and an officer of the prescribed rank may conduct the investigation through subordinate assistance while remaining in effective control of the inquiry.

---