The judgment emphasizes the importance of prompt registration and investigation of cognizable cases, the prohibition of using statements made to the police during investigation, and the cautious approach to acting upon uncorroborated evidence tainted by illegal procedures.

1. This appeal by the State is against the judgment in Sessions Case No.1 of 1958 on the file of the Special Judge, Trivandrum, acquitting the respondent, a Forester of the Thodupuzha Range of the offences punishable under S.5 (i) (a) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). The case was referred by Kumara Pillai and Velu Pillai, JJ. to a Full Bench as important questions of law regarding the registration and investigation of offences under Central Act II of 1947 were raised in it and it was thought desirable, in view of the several similar cases pending trial or investigation, to have an authoritative pronouncement by this Court on these questions.

2. The case against the accused was that while he was functioning as Forester in the Thodupuzha Range he took bribes from a number of persons belonging to the hill tribes who had trespassed into the Government Forest Reserve and were carrying on illegal cultivation there. It was the accused's duty as the Forester to take action against the transpassers and to bring them to book. However, it is alleged that he began to utilize his position as a Forester to force such trespassers who carried on unauthorised cultivation to pay him illegal gratification The charge against him is that he received several amounts ranging from Rs. 10 to Rs. 200 from witnesses 1 to 9,11 to 15,18 and 20 to 25 between the months of February and August 1956. These witnesses from whom illegal gratification was obtained by the accused were members of an Association called the Thiru-Cochi Vanavarga Maha Sabha (Travancore-Cochin Hill Tribes Association), an association created for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of the hill-tribes. The aggrieved parties complained to Pw. 16 the then President of the Association who after making some enquiries to verify the truth of the allegations, forwarded a petition on 6-7-1956 to the Special Inspector General of Police, Anti-corruption, Trivandrum. Ext. P-16 is the copy of that petition. The petition contains definite allegations against the accused, of having obtained illegal gratification from several persons, some of whom were named. The petition was received on 7-7-1956 by the Special Inspector General of Police who forwarded it to the then Assistant Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption, Kottayam (later on designated as Deputy Superintendent of Police) for enquiry and report. The Assistant Superintendent of Police in turn forwarded it to the Circle Inspector of Police, Pw. 31 for enquiry. Pw. 31 questioned Pw. 16 as well as Pws.1 to 9,11 to 15,18 and 20 to 25 who are alleged to have actually paid bribes to the accused, took signed statements from them and sent in his report. On the basis of this report Pw. 32, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Kottayam, filed Ext. P-29, the First Information Report on 27-3-1957, that is, some eight months after the receipt of the petition from the President of the Hill-Tribes Association. Thereafter Pw. 32 is said to have investigated the case and charge-sheeted the accused on 3-1-1958.

3. The accused denied the charges. He alleged that the ease was concocted against him by Pw. 16, the President of the Association due to enmity resulting from his refusal to withdraw the proceedings taken against some of the members of the Association for trespass into the Government Forest Reserve.

4. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for want of acceptable evidence to prove the charges against him. The learned judge held that it was the petition from the President of the Association and not the report from the Assistant Superintendent of Police that should be treated as the First Information and as such the enquiry conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police can only be considered as part of the investigation. According to the learned judge the signed statements taken by the Circle Inspector from the witnesses are hit by S.162, Criminal Procedure Code with the result that the