Irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the trial unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. Sanction for prosecution under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also covers prosecution under Section 5(1)(c) if the allegations made clearly show that the sanctioning authority had Section 5(1)(c) in mind.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J.: These are three appeals by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. It will be convenient to dispose them of together, though they arise out of three different trials before the Special Judge, Saharanpur. under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 2 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the appellant is the same in all the appeals.

2. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. Munnalal was the cashier of the Municipal Board of Hardwar and had been working as such since 1932. He was in-charge of the cash and it was his duty to see that whenever the funds in his possession exceeded Rs. 4,000/- they were deposited in the treasury or the Imperial Bank at Roorkee. In 1949 there was an audit of the accounts of the Board and on May 24, 1949, the auditor found that the money received by the Board from April 20, 1949 to May 23, 1949 totalling Rs. 52,144/- had not been deposited in the treasury or the Imperial Bank at Roorkee. The matter was then reported to the Chairman of the Board, who called Munnalal and took his explanation as to the allegal embezzlement. It is said that the appellant admitted that he had spent some of the money in the marriage of his daughter and some was used in his shop and Rs. 10,000/.- to Rs. 11,000/- had been given to the Executive Officer and the remainder was at his house. The appellant was asked to make good the loss immediately but failed to do so. Thereupon the appellant was suspended and the matter was handed over to the police for investigation.

3. The police registered a case under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation prosecuted the Executive Officer as well as the appellant and his brother who was the Assistant Cashier at the relevant time. The case was transferred by the High Court to a Magistrate in Meerut; but that case was not proceeded with as an application was made to withdraw it on the ground that the case was covered by S. 5(2) of the Act. So the magistrate discharged the three accused of that case. Thereafter necessary sanction was given for prosecution under S. 5(2) of the Act and four prosecutions were launched against the appellants and his brother. The Special Judge, however took the view that the joint trial of the appellant and his brother was not possible with respect to some of the moneys said to have been embezzled. He therefore ordered that there should be three separate trials of the appellant alone with respect to certain moneys in addition to the four trials of the appellant and his brother with respect to the remainder. That is how seven trials took place. In the present appeals we are not concerned with the other accused, namely, the brother of the appellant, as he was acquitted. We are also not concerned with four of the trials; we are only concerned with three trials with respect to three sums of money in these three appeals. Appeal No. 102 is concerned with a sum of Rs. 1623/4/- received between April 14, 1949 and May 23, 1949 and not accounted for; Appeal No. 103 is concerned with a sum of Rs. 9611/9/6 received between April 20, 1949, and May 24, 1949 and not accounted for; and appeal No. 104 is concerned with a sum of Rs. 43,087/-/3 received between April 20, 1949 and May 4,. 1949 and not accounted for.

4. The case of the prosecution was that these sums were received by the appellant during the period mentioned above and had not been deposited either in the treasury or in the Imperial Bank at Roorkee as required by the rules. The appellant practically admitted the receipt of the money except a few items which were also found by the Special Judge to have been received by him. He also admitted that his duty was to deposit any sums above Rs. 4,000/- in the Imperial Bank or the treasury at Roorkee. He was however inconsistent in his defence as to what he did with the moneys which he had undoubtedly received. He first tried to prove that he had deposited the amounts. In the alte