TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (11) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons given by the Special Judge did not appeal to the High Court which dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the conviction under Section 5(1)(d). It reduced the fine of Rs. 1, 000/- to one of Rs. 100/- but increased the sentence under Section 5(2) of the Act for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) to simple imprisonment for one year and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The main point advanced by Mr. Mohan Kumar Mangalam appearing for the appellant was that the sanction to investigate the offence given by the Magistrate was not proper inasmuch as he had not recorded any reason as to why he had given permission to an Inspector of Police, P. Ramarao, to investigate the offence of criminal misconduct of obtaining illegal gratification. 3. Section 5-A of the Act contains certain safeguards from undue harassment of public offices from enquiry by ensuring that the investigation regard to the offences specified is conducted by a police officer of certain designated high ranks except under orders of a Presidency magistrate or a Magistrate of the first Class. A Police Inspector does not come within the designated ranks and such an order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate and issue the same unless the money and the certificates were brought to him immediately. The complainant then went to the Inspector to Police, Anti-Corruption, Gulbarga, P.W. 20, and narrated all the above facts in a written complaint. On the same day the Police Inspector submitted an application to the First Class Magistrate, Bidar, asking for permission under Section 5-A of the Act to investigate the offences under Section 161, I. P.C., and Section 5(1)(d) of the Act against the District Medical Officer. The application shows that the complainant had arranged for Rs. 40/- to be paid to the appellant and records the numbers of the currency notes to be given to the appellant. The Inspector stated in the application."The nature of the complaint is such as warrants immediate investigation." The Police Inspector prayed that permission be accorded as asked for and that he be authorised to conduct the search of the person of the appellant and the place where he kept the bribe amount after accepting it from the complainant. 5. The Magistrate who figured as a prosecution witness in the case gave evidence to the effect that the application was put up before him on the 29th March....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which was given. On August 14, 1961, on the transfer of P.W. 20 from Bidar his successor-in-office, Inspector Desai, asked for the magistrate's sanction to carry on the investigation from the stage at which it had been left by his predecessor and the Magistrate accorded permission. A charge-sheet was filed and the case registered in the Court of the Special Judge on November 14, 1961. On August 13, 1962, the appellant presented two applications before the Special Judge by one of which he questioned the legality of the proceedings, inter alia, on he ground that the investigation had not been carried on by a designated officer under Section 5-A of the Act. The Special Judge went into the question in some detail and held that on the facts of the case there was "administrative exigency to permit the Inspector to investigate". He however directed re-investigation as from April 1, 1961, by the Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Measures, State Level, Bangalore. 8. The matter was taken up in revision to the High Court of Mysore. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. In rejecting the appeal the High Court relying upon the decision in Rishbud and Another v. State of Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce was that he knew both the complainant and the appellant-accused and that when he was in front of the New Mysore Cafe, P.W. 18, a Police Officer had approached him and requested him to act as a search witness. P.W. 5 in his evidence similarly stated that he had been asked by P.W. 18 to be a search witness. He further admitted that he had formerly worked in the Reserve Police when P.W. 18 was a trainee under him. At the most all that can be said with regard to P.Ws. 3 and 5 is that P.W. 18 knew them but counsel was not able to point out any fact disclosing intimacy of P.W. 20 with the search witnesses. 13. The judgment of the High Court shows that no suggestion was made that either P.W. 18 or P.W. 20 bore any ill-will towards the appellant to get up a false case against him and the High Court fund no reason for rejecting the evidence of P.W. 3, one of the search witnesses, as also of P.W. 18 and P.W. 20. 14. The High Court rejected the version put forward by the appellant with regard to the incident on the 29th March as false. According to the appellant, the complainant had rushed into his examination-room when he was treating another patient and had thrust the money into h....