1973 (2) TMI 130 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds bribery conviction, emphasizes trial court competence. No retrial needed.

AC. SHARMA Versus DELHI ADMN.

The Supreme Court held that the investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not unauthorized, emphasizing that any irregularity does not ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of Investigation2. Merits of the CaseIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Investigation:The appellant questioned the legality of the investigation conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of the Anti-Corruption Department of the Delhi Administration, arguing that only the Delhi Special Police Establishment (D.S.P.E.) had jurisdiction to investigate offences against Central Government employees, as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The appellant supported this contention with a letter dated February 10, 1966, from the S.P. Anti-Corruption Branch, stating that the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi Administration was not competent to investigate allegations against a Central Government employee.The Supreme Court examined whether the setting up of the D.S.P.E. deprived the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi Police of its power to investigate such offences. The Court reviewed the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, including its preamble and Section 3, which allows the Central Government to specify offences to be investigated by the D.S.P.E. The Court noted that the Act was intended to empower the D.S.P.E. to investigate certain offences without excluding the jurisdiction of the regular police.Additionally, the Court referred to Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which regulates the competence of officers to investigate certain offences and provides safeguards against arbitrary investigations. The Court concluded that the D.S.P.E. Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act were designed to function harmoniously with the existing police investigating agencies and did not exclusively vest investigative powers in the D.S.P.E.The Court also considered administrative instructions and past practices, which indicated that both the D.S.P.E. and the regular police had concurrent jurisdiction over certain cases. The Court held that the investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not unauthorized or contrary to law. It emphasized that any irregularity in the investigation process does not affect the competence of the trial court unless it causes a miscarriage of justice.2. Merits of the Case:The appellant was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code for accepting a bribe. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of Bakht Ram, who alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 30 for expediting a case. The currency notes were recovered from the appellant's possession, and their numbers matched those noted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.The appellant's defense was that the money recovered was a repayment of a loan given to Bakht Ram. He produced four witnesses to support this claim. However, the Special Judge found the defense witnesses to be interested and their testimony unconvincing. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the appellant's admission of receiving Rs. 30 shifted the burden of proof onto him to show that it was not received as illegal gratification, which he failed to do.In the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and that the defense version should have been accepted. The counsel also criticized the use of Section 164, Cr.P.C., to record witness statements, suggesting it indicated compulsion. The Supreme Court, however, found no infirmity in the judgments of the lower courts. It noted that the appellant's explanation for receiving the money was unconvincing and that the defense evidence was unimpressive.The Supreme Court concluded that there was no extraordinary reason to re-appraise the evidence and upheld the conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.