Anti-corruption law: investigation permission, statutory presumption, and valid sanction by competent authority determine prosecution validity.

Permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was treated as covering the entire investigation, including trap proceedings and subsequent verification steps, and an irregularity in investigation did not vitiate the trial absent prejudice. The statutory presumption under section 4 arose once receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration was shown, and the accused had to rebut it by ative proof on a preponderance of probability, not by a merely plausible explanation. A prosecution under section 6(1) required sanction from the authority competent to remove the public servant from office; where such competence was not proved, the sanction was invalid and the conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the investigation was invalid for want of proper permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act; (ii) the scope of the statutory presumption under section 4 and the nature of the accused's burden to rebut it; (iii) whether the sanction for prosecution under section 6(1) was granted by the authority competent to remove the appellant from office.

Issue (i): whether the investigation was invalid for want of proper permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis: Permission under section 5A was held to authorise the entire investigation, including the laying of a trap and all further steps taken to verify the complaint. The provision does not contemplate two separate sanctions. Even if the officer mistakenly sought a second permission later, that did not affect the validity of the earlier order. An irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: The investigation was not invalid on this ground and the contention failed.

Issue (ii): the scope of the statutory presumption under section 4 and the nature of the accused's burden to rebut it.

Analysis: The presumption arises once receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration is shown. The word "gratification" was given its ordinary meaning and was not confined to money proved affirmatively to be a bribe. To rebut the presumption, the accused must do more than offer a plausible explanation; the contrary must be proved by evidence meeting the standard of preponderance of probability. The defence evidence was not accepted by the trial court or the High Court.

Conclusion: The presumption operated against the appellant and was not rebutted.

Issue (iii): whether the sanction for prosecution under section 6(1) was granted by the authority competent to remove the appellant from office.

Analysis: A valid sanction must come from the authority competent to remove the public servant from service. Oral assertions were insufficient to establish such competence. The rules and materials placed before the Court did not show that the sanctioning authority had power to remove the appellant, who was a class III railway officer, from office. In the absence of proof of competence, the sanction was invalid.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was invalid and the conviction could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the prosecution was not supported by a valid sanction, and the conviction was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act covers the whole investigation, the presumption under section 4 arises on proof of receipt of gratification not being legal remuneration and must be rebutted by proof, and a prosecution under section 6(1) is barred unless sanctioned by the authority competent to remove the accused from office.

---