Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not vitiate the entire proceedings in Court.

( 1 ) IN this Reference to a Full Bench, we find It necessary to formulate the Questions arising out of the facts ourselves, inasmuch as they have not been formulated in the Order of Reference. The questions which do arise may be stated in the following form: (1) Whether when a Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police investigates an offence under Section 120 B, read with Section 420, Penal Code and Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 without complying with the provisions of Section 5 (4) (now Section 5a) of the latter Act, such failure would vitiate the entire proceedings in Court based on the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer; And

( 2 ) WAS the case of 'sudhir Kumar v. The State', in so far as it decided that the entire proceedings in Court would be vitiated in such circumstances, rightly decided? 2. Since the reference was made, the identical question has been decided by the Supreme-Court and we are therefore relieved of the necessity of trying to find an answer to the question for ourselves. In view of the decision of their Lordships in the case of 'h. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi', the answer to the first question must be in the negative.

( 3 ) THE second question is consequential The answer to that question must, therefore, be also in the negative.

( 4 ) SINCE this is a Reference in a criminal matter arising out of a Revision Case, the whole case has been referred to the Full Bench and we have not only to answer the questions referred or arising out of the facts, but have also to make the final order in the Revision Case itself. It would appear from the decision of the Supreme Court, to which I have just referred that their Lordships, while holding that a valid and legal police report could not be regarded as the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to take cognizance of an offence, added, at the same time, that it did not follow that the invalidity of the investigation was to be completely ignored by the Court during trial. In what manner the illegality of the investigation could be called In aid, either to obtain a reversal of the conviction when a conviction was made or to obtain an order for reinvestigation, if the case was still pending was also explained by their Lordships. We are not directly concerned with a case where the trial has ended, but for the sake of completeness, I might refer to what their Lordships have said with regard to such a case. "where the cognizance of the case," observed their Lordships, 'has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the Invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. ' all that we need point out is that their Lordships seem to contemplate that even after a conviction has been made on the evidence given in Court, there may be cases where the accused will be able to satisfy the Court that some miscarriage of justice had yet been caused to him by reason of the very invalidity of the precedent investigation.

( 5 ) THE other type of cases, which their Lordships considered in their judgment, are cases where the trial has not ended but is proceeding. With regard to cases of that type, their Lordships observed as follows: 'when the breach of such a mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge of the Court at a sufficiently early stage, the Court, while not declining cognizance, will have to take the necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the defect rectified, by ordering such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual case may call for. ' and again: 'when the attention of the Court is called to such an illegality at a very early stage, it would not be fair to the accused not to obviate the prejudice that may have been caused thereby, by appropriate orders, at that stage, but to leave him to the ultimate remedy of waiting till the conclusion of the trial and of discharging the