Procedural presumptions, valid investigation authorisation, and no failure of justice in a corruption charge sustained the conviction.

The repeal of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 did not displace the presumption in a pending appeal because the provision formed part of the procedural law, and section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved prior proceedings and valid steps already taken. The Magistrate's authorisation for investigation under section 5A was valid because he applied his mind to the material and did not act mechanically. The charge was not vitiated by lack of fuller particulars, as the accused was not shown to have been misled or to have suffered a failure of justice. The conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the repeal of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 displaced the presumption in a pending appeal; (ii) whether the order authorising investigation by the Inspector under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was illegal; and (iii) whether the charge was defective for want of detailed particulars.

Issue (i): Whether the repeal of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 displaced the presumption in a pending appeal.

Analysis: The presumption under section 5(3) was treated as part of the procedural machinery governing proof in trials for criminal misconduct. A change in procedure ordinarily operates retrospectively, but repeal does not disturb proceedings already concluded or valid steps already taken unless a contrary intention appears. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserves prior operation and pending proceedings, and the conviction in this case had been recorded long before the amending Act came into force.

Conclusion: The presumption remained available, and the challenge based on repeal failed, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the order authorising investigation by the Inspector under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was illegal.

Analysis: Section 5A required authorisation by the competent Magistrate before investigation by an officer below the prescribed rank. The Magistrate's order was passed on the material placed before him, including the practical need for a whole-time investigation. The record showed that the Magistrate applied his mind and did not pass the order mechanically.

Conclusion: The authorisation was valid, and the contention that section 5A was violated was rejected, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the charge was defective for want of detailed particulars.

Analysis: The charge alleged criminal misconduct and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Though greater particulars could have been supplied, the omission did not by itself vitiate the charge unless the accused was actually misled and a failure of justice resulted. The record showed that the accused understood the case and was able to meet it, and no such objection had been taken at the proper stages.

Conclusion: The defect, if any, was not material, and the challenge to the charge failed, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was upheld in law, and the appeal had no merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural presumption or mode of proof applicable when trial or conviction has already been validly completed is not displaced by subsequent repeal, and a charge will not be vitiated unless the accused was actually misled and a failure of justice is shown.

---