TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (3) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in August, 1965 as Head Constable attached to Hauz Qazi Police Station, Delhi. One Som Nath used to park his rehri in the chowk of Hauz Qazi and sell Kulchey and Chholey. Som Nath had been plying this trade for about 8 or 10 years without payment of the necessary tax to the Municipal Corporation and without taking any licence. The appellant used to harass and threaten Som Nath that unless he paid bribe to him, he will be prosecuted. In particular on August 25, 1965 the appellant demanded from Som Nath as bribe a sum of Rs. 20 per month for not harassing him for carrying on his business without the necessary licence. Som Nath expressed his inability to pay such a heavy amount and ultimately the appellant agreed to receive Rs. 10 per month. He promised to make the first payment on August 26, 1965 between 2 and 3 P. M. At about 11 A. M. on August 26, 1965, Som Nath approached Sri Hamaik Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to the Anti, Corruption Department and reported about the demand made by the appellant and to his having ultimately agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 between 2 and 3 P. M. on that day., This complaint was reduced to writing by Harnaik Singh, who has given e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant had not received any bribe from P. W. I and that he also informed P. W. 6 about the same. D. W. 2 was the Secretary of the Rehri Labour Union and he has deposed to the fact that none of the members of the Union had ever complained against the appellant and that the latter had nothing to do with the prosecution of people under Section 34 of the Police Act. The, learned Special Judge accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6, and rejected the evidence of D. Ws. 1, and 2. The view of the learned Special Judge was that D. W. I was giving false, evidence on account of business friendship and that D. W. 2 had said nothing about the incident in question. In this view the Special Judge found the appellant guilty of the offenses with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. On appeal to the High Court, the appellant pressed the objection that the investigation of the case was done in violation of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. According to the appellant, instead of P. W. 6 conducting the investigation, it was done by the Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash and, therefore, no conviction could be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the courts. We are satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been properly accepted by the courts. This leaves us the consideration of the first contention that the investigation has not been conducted in accordance with Section 5A of the Act. We must frankly admit that the observation made by the High Court that there has been a certain amount of irregularity in the investigation of the case has given scope for this argument. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the entire investigation in this case has been done not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police P. W. 6, but by the Sub-Inspector of Police Ved Prakash, who has also not appeared before the court. The contention of the learned counsel in this regard is based upon the fact that some of the statements, reports and memos have been written not by P. W. 6 but by Ved Prakash. Mr. G. N. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Administration, has drawn our attention to the various reports, statements and memos exhibited in the case to show that the investigation has been done not by Ved Prakash, but by P. W. 6 and it is not violative of Section 5A of the Act. He has also placed considerab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arity committed during the stage of investigation. On the other hand, the trial was allowed to proceed and it came to an end. That contention was raised only at the stage of arguments. In this connection we may also refer to the decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali([1959] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 201), There the objection was taken before the trial began before the Special Judge, that the investigation has been carried on in breach of Section 5A of the Act. The matter was taken to the High Court and it directed that it in order to rectify the defects and cure the illegality in the investigation, the Special Judge should have ordered the Deputy Superin- tendent of Police to carry on the investigation himself while the case remained pending in the court of the Special Judge. That order of the High Court was challenged and this Court confirmed it and declined to interfere on the ground that as the objection has been taken at the earliest stage before the trial began, the direction given by the High Court was justified as that will ensure a proper investigation being made and completed for the prosecution of the accused therein. Therefore the ratio of the. said decision canno....