Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- Mr. Frank Anthony arguing the case for the accused, in this appeal by special leave, has put forward four main contentions against the appellant s conviction, namely, (a) that the prosecution is invalid for want of competent sanction; (b) that the investigation is not merely illegal but has in consequence inflicted serious prejudice on the accused; (c) that the non-examination of key witnesses, like the Deputy Superintendent of Police, should have driven the Court to draw an adverse inference fatal to the case, and the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices or quasi-accomplices should not have been the foundation for a conviction, and (d) that the Court had drawn a presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, although there was no warrant for it in the present case, the charge having been one under Section 5(1)(d), read with Section 5(2) of the said Act.

2. A brief statement of the facts will lead to a better appreciation of the arguments urged. The accused (appellant) was an Assistant Station Master at Atoli in May 1967. P. W. 3, a member of the armed Forces, was going back home by train from Udaipur with his wife and child on railway