( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by one Naginlal Nandlal who was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge Surat under sec. 161 Indian Penal Code and under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Judge acquitted accused No. 2.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the complainant Ratilal Somabhai used to deal in illicit liquor and used to give bribes generally to the members of the police force. It is also alleged that after some time the complainant stopped dealing in illicit liquor and that the two police constables who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the trial made a demand from him for the payment of Rs. 25/as bribe. As the complainant had stopped his dealing in illicit liquor he went and gave information to the P. S. I. Mansuri of the Anti-Corruption Department who recorded his information on 31-1-60. On 1-2-60. P. S. I. Mansuri made a report to the Judicial Magistrate First Class Surat and asked for permission to investigate as such a permission was necessary under sec. 5 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Magistrate gave the sanction under sec. 5 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

( 3 ) AT the trial the prosecution relied on the evidence of the complainant Ratilal of one of the Panchas of the police constable Mahadeb and of the P. S. I. Mansuri. The prosecution also relied on the two Panchnamas.

( 4 ) IN appeal the conviction of the appellant is challenged. It is urged that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be rejected. It is urged that the order of the Magistrate giving permission to P. S. I. Mansuri for investigation was bad because it contravened the principles laid down in H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi A. I. R. 1955 Supreme Court 196 It is also contended that the order of the Magistrate giving authority to P. S. I. Kantilal for further investigation was also bad. It is urged that on account of the illegality in the investigation the appellant had been prejudiced. It is also contended that the power to investigate did not include the power of laying a trap and that the laying of a trap was illegal. It is also contended that the prosecution could not rely on the Panchnama and that the Panchnama should not have been admitted in evidence. Lastly it is contended that the learned Special Judge was wrong in believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in regard to the appellant and in rejecting the evidence of the defence witness.

( 5 ) AT the trial the appellant was charged under sec. 16 Indian Penal Code and under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act both of which are cognisable offences. In this connection it is important to refer to the provisions of sec. 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 6 ) SEC. 156 Cri. P. C. reads as follows: (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognisable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under sec. 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

( 7 ) THIS section is found in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure which relates to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Sec. 154 Criminal Procedure Code which is found in this Chapter provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence should either be in writing or should be reduced to writing. Sec. 156 Cri. Pro. Code then provides that any officer in charge of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognisable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power t