Ex officio appointment and defective investigation claims failed where the statute allowed office-based appointment and no prejudice was shown.

A statutory appointment to the office of special police officer may be made by virtue of office, not only by name, where the governing Act does not require personal selection and permits appointment by the State Government for the specified area and rank. The Act also permits subordinate officers to assist in investigation under the special police officer's direction and supervision, so every investigative step need not be performed personally by that officer. A defect in investigation does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown; on these grounds, the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a special police officer under the Act could validly be appointed by virtue of office and not necessarily by name. (ii) Whether the investigation was invalid because parts of it were carried out by subordinate officers and whether any such irregularity vitiated the trial.

Issue (i): Whether a special police officer under the Act could validly be appointed by virtue of office and not necessarily by name.

Analysis: Section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits an appointment to an office or function to be made either by name or by virtue of office unless the statute expressly provides otherwise. The definition of 'special police officer' and Section 13 of the Act required only that the officer be appointed by or on behalf of the State Government for the specified area and not below the prescribed rank. The Act did not prescribe any requirement of personal selection by name or any special qualification showing that appointment must be individualised. The statutory scheme, including the provision for delegation and for assistance by subordinate officers, was consistent with appointment by designation or office. Earlier judicial construction also supported this view.

Conclusion: The appointment of the special police officer by virtue of office was valid and the contention that appointment had to be by name was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the investigation was invalid because parts of it were carried out by subordinate officers and whether any such irregularity vitiated the trial.

Analysis: The Act contemplates that the special police officer is to be assisted by subordinate officers for the efficient discharge of functions in relation to offences under the Act. The expression 'dealing with offences' includes investigation, and the scheme of the Act does not require every stage of investigation to be personally performed by the special police officer. Subordinate officers could investigate under his direction and supervision, while the special police officer himself was to take the final decision on filing the charge-sheet. In any event, a defect or illegality in investigation does not by itself affect the competence of the court or the validity of the trial unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown.

Conclusion: The investigation substantially complied with the Act, and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice having been shown, the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appellant obtained no relief on either ground raised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing statute does not require appointment by name, a statutory office may validly be filled ex officio; and a defect in investigation does not vitiate the trial unless it causes prejudice or a miscarriage of justice.

---