https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169360 Section 5(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a mandatory safeguard requiring investigation by a police officer of the prescribed rank unless a Magistrate authorised otherwise. The requirement was understood to govern the investigation as a whole and to protect public servants from improper harassment. A breach of that restriction did not automatically invalidate cognizance or trial; the proceedings would be affected only if the illegality caused prejudice or a failure of justice. Where the objection was raised early, the court could take corrective steps, including reinvestigation, to preserve the statutory safeguard. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:31:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169360 Section 5(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a mandatory safeguard requiring investigation by a police officer of the prescribed rank unless a Magistrate authorised otherwise. The requirement was understood to govern the investigation as a whole and to protect public servants from improper harassment. A breach of that restriction did not automatically invalidate cognizance or trial; the proceedings would be affected only if the illegality caused prejudice or a failure of justice. Where the objection was raised early, the court could take corrective steps, including reinvestigation, to preserve the statutory safeguard. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Dec 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169360