1971 (3) TMI 115 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Investigation, Dismisses Appeal

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, determining that the investigation was conducted by the appropriate authority, P.W. 6, and that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the investigation under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. Credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the defense's claim of false implication.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Investigation under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947The appellant contended that the investigation was conducted in violation of Section 5A of the Act, arguing that it was carried out by Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash instead of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W. 6. The High Court acknowledged a certain amount of irregularity in the investigation, noting that some statements and reports were written by Ved Prakash. However, it concluded that this irregularity did not vitiate the trial or the proceedings against the appellant.The Supreme Court reaffirmed this view, emphasizing that Section 5A is mandatory and an investigation conducted in violation thereof is illegal. However, it referenced the case of H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singh vs. The State of Delhi, which held that if cognizance has been taken on a police report in breach of mandatory provisions, the results cannot be set aside unless it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the appellant did not raise any objections before the trial commenced and only brought up the issue during arguments. The Court found no evidence of miscarriage of justice or prejudice against the appellant due to the alleged irregularity.The Supreme Court further clarified that the investigation was indeed conducted by P.W. 6, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was in complete charge and control. The fact that some statements were in the handwriting of Ved Prakash, written under the dictation and supervision of P.W. 6, did not constitute a violation of Section 5A. The Court stated that it is not necessary for the officer of the appropriate rank to perform every step personally, as long as they maintain control and direction over the investigation.2. Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses and the Defense's Claim of False ImplicationThe appellant argued that the prosecution's case was engineered by his enemy, Ved Prakash, and that the witnesses were influenced and tutored to give false evidence. He claimed that the recovery of the currency note was fabricated and that the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 should have been accepted.The prosecution relied on the testimonies of P.W. 1 (Som Nath), P.W. 2, P.W. 3, and P.W. 6 (Deputy Superintendent of Police), all of whom provided consistent and corroborative evidence. The Special Judge and the High Court both found these witnesses credible and rejected the defense's claims. The evidence of D.W. 1 was dismissed as false due to business friendship, and D.W. 2's testimony was deemed irrelevant as it did not address the incident in question.The Supreme Court upheld these findings, agreeing that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was properly accepted and that the defense's claims were unsubstantiated. The Court noted that the appellant's plea of witnesses being under police influence was not accepted by any of the courts.ConclusionThe Supreme Court concluded that there was no illegality or irregularity in the investigation as it was conducted by the competent authority, P.W. 6. The evidence provided by the prosecution was credible and properly accepted, and there was no miscarriage of justice or prejudice against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to surrender his bail.