Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I. AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.
The State of A.P., Appellant
Versus
P. V. Narayana, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1968, D/-9-2-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. G. Narayana Rao, Advocate, with him), for Appellant, Mr. K. Jayaram, Advocate, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code - Section 161 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 155 (2) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) – Illegal gratification - Appeal is by certificate - Respondent was working as Head Train Examiner and was posted at Waltair in South Eastern Railway - It was alleged that on respondent demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 5/- as gratification, other than legal remuneration, from P. W. 1 who too was a railway employee, as a motive or reward for having attested an Urban Bank Pay Order dated for Rs. 265.80np. drawn in favour of P. W. 1 and for having posted him for duty at Waltair Goods Yards - After stating facts briefly in this requisition he said, "As Superintendent of Police, S. P. E., is engaged in administrative matters and supervising investigations at Hyderabad and other two Deputy Superintendents of Police are also engaged in investigation of important cases and other enquiries and as it is not possible to secure their presence in near future at Waltair to investigate into said complaint – Held, learned Counsel for appellant contended that assuming sanction was bad, this Court has held on a number of occasions that an illegal investigation does not vitiate the trial. In other words, that in order to set aside conviction it must be shown that there has been miscarriage of justice as a result of bad and irregular investigation- High Court did not go into the question whether illegal investigation had resulted in prejudice to the respondent - Learned Counsel for respondent contended that very fact that the main investigation was conducted without a valid sanction had resulted in prejudice to respondent - It seems to Court that High Court should, apart from other questions which it did not deal with, also go into this question of prejudice – Court accordingly accept appeal, set aside judgment and order of High Court and remand case to it for disposal in accordance with law - Case remanded.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of the High Court, which had quashed proceedings against the respondent and allowed his appeal (!) (!) .
The respondent was employed as Head Train Examiner at Waltair in South Eastern Railway. It was alleged that he demanded and accepted a small amount of gratification from a fellow railway employee as a reward for attesting a pay order and for posting him to a specific duty station (!) (!) .
The complaint was made by the railway employee, who approached the authorities alleging harassment for a bribe. The investigation was initiated based on a requisition presented to the magistrate by an Inspector of Police, who claimed that senior officers were engaged in other investigations and therefore unavailable to investigate this case (!) (!) .
The Magistrate authorized the investigation based on the Inspector's requisition, but the procedure was found to be unwarranted by the provisions of the relevant law, as the authorities did not confirm with or contact the senior officers before the requisition. The Court observed that this procedural irregularity rendered the investigation unauthorized (!) .
A subsequent application was made to re-authorize the investigation after the initial investigation was deemed invalid. However, the main investigation had already been completed by that time. The High Court held that because the investigation was unauthorized, the proceedings were vitiated, but did not examine whether this irregularity caused prejudice to the respondent (!) .
The appellant's counsel argued that an illegal investigation does not necessarily invalidate the trial unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. The Court referenced prior judgments affirming that the invalidity of an investigation does not automatically vitiate the trial if no prejudice is shown (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the High Court failed to consider whether the illegal investigation caused prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case for proper disposal in accordance with law (!) (!) .
The case was ultimately remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that the legality of the investigation and potential prejudice should be properly examined in accordance with legal principles (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or a detailed analysis of any specific aspect.
Judgment
SIKRI, CJI.: - This appeal is by certificate granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court against its judgment allowing the appeal of the respondent and quashing the proceedings against him. He had been convicted by the learned Special Judge for SPE cases, Secunderabad, under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
2. The facts of the case and the points raised before us are as follows:
3. The respondent was working as Head Train Examiner and was posted at Waltair in the South Eastern Railway. It was alleged that on 14th July, 1964, the respondent demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 5/- as gratification, other than legal remuneration, from P. W. 1 who too was a railway employee, as a motive or reward for having attested on 1-7-1964 an Urban Bank Pay Order dated 20-6-1964 for Rs. 265.80np. drawn in favour of P. W. 1 and for having posted him for duty at the Waltair Goods Yards. It appears that P. W. 1 approached the Inspector of the Special Police Establishment and informed him that the respondent was harassing him for a payment of bribe of Rs. 5/-. The Inspector made confidential enquiries and learnt that the respondent was indulging in corrupt practices and that there was truth in the complaint made by P. W. 1. On 13-7-64 he presented the requisition Ex. P-14 before the Ist Class Magistrate, Visakhkapatnam, requesting him to authorise the Inspector to investigate the case. After stating the facts briefly in this requisition he said, "As the Superintendent of Police, S. P. E., is engaged in administrative matters and supervising investigations at Hyderabad and the other two Deputy Superintendents of Police are also engaged in the investigation of important cases and other enquiries and as it is not possible to secure their presence in the near future at Waltair to investigate into said complaint of Sri Appanna, I request that I may be permitted under Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) and Section 155 (2), Criminal Procedure Code to investigate the allegations and to lay a trap". On the same day the District Munsif-cum-First Class Magistrate, Visakhkapatnam, passed the following order:
"Whereas it is alleged that respondent is demanding and accepting illegal gratification from his staff for showing official favours and that he demanded Rs. 5/- as bribe from Shri Ella Appanna for having attested his cheque.
And whereas, I am satisfied that the Superintendent of Police and the two Deputy Superintendents of Police Special Police Establishment, Hyderabad, are otherwise engaged and unable to take up investigation of the allegations complained of;
And whereas, I Shri D. Krishnan Raju, am satisfied on a perusal of the petition of the Inspector of Police and on hearing Shri P. Sreerama Murthy, Inspector of Police, that there are reasonable and good grounds to authorise investigation of the allegations, I do hereby authorise Shri P. Sreerama Murthy, Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Hyderabad under Sections 5-A of Act 2 of 1947 and 155 (2). Criminal P. C. to investigate the allegations and to lay a trap".
4. It would be seen from the requisition and the order of the Magistrate that it is not stated that the Inspector of Police had contacted the Superintendent of Police or the two Deputy Superintendents of Police or he was told by them that they were engaged in administrative matters and supervising investigation of important cases and they were unable to take up the investigation of either this case or other cases. In his evidence he admitted that before giving the requisition he did not send any memo or letter to his office for ascertaining whether the D. Ss. P. or S. P. were engaged in any other case. So, the net result seems to be that the Inspector made the requisition at his own initiative without getting into contact with the S. P. or the D. Ss. P. The Magistrate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
