Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be conducted by an officer of adequate rank; otherwise, it vitiates proceedings and convictions based on such investigations cannot be upheld.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The instant criminal appeals, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as “CrPC”), are directed against the judgment dated 23.03.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Bhilwara, in Special Cases No. 10/1991 and 11/1991. By the said judgment, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced in the following terms:

(i) Under Section 420 IPC – rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment;

(ii) Under Section 161 IPC – rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment;

(iii) Under Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as ”PC Act”) – rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment.

All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 135/1993

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that Gani Mohd. was selected for the post of Laboratory Assistant in an interview held on 27.12.1983. The appellant met him, enquired about his particulars, and assured him of informing him about his appointment. On 01.01.1984, the appellant demanded Rs. 2,000/- for securing the appointment. Gani Mohd. arranged Rs. 1,000/- from his neighbour Magnaram and, along with another Rs. 1,000/- of his own, paid the sum to the appellant in the presence of Shafi Mohd. The appellant later obtained a copy of the appointment order but further demanded Rs. 1,000/-, for which a pronote was executed by Gani Mohd. On 29.01.1984, the appellant recovered this amount from Gulshan, mother of Gani Mohd., by showing her the pronote.

2.1 On 07.01.1984, Gani Mohd. disclosed the payment of Rs. 3,000/- to his maternal uncle, Rafiq Mohd., who made enquiries. Initially, on 20.03.1984, Gani Mohd. gave a statement before the District Education Officer denying payment of any money, but on the next day, 21.03.1984, he admitted having paid Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification. On this report lodged by Shri Hathiram Mishra, a case was registered under Sections 161 and 420 IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the PC Act. After investigation and sanction, the challan was filed, and the case, partly tried at Udaipur, was transferred to Bhilwara, where the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant.

Brief facts of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 134/1993

2.2 The appellant, working in the office of the District Education Officer, Bhilwara, was accused of demanding money for appointments to the posts of Laboratory Assistant and Class IV employee. One Ishaq Mohd., appointed as a part-time Peon in February 1984, alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.1000/- for his appointment. During an enquiry by the Deputy District Education Officer, Ishaq Mohd. gave a written statement, and the appellant, when confronted, admitted the allegations and sought pardon. The District Education Officer later reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Department, which registered a case under Sections 161 , 420 IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, a challan was filed, and the case was tried by the Special Judge, Bhilwara, who convicted and sentenced the appellant.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Dy.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as perused the material available on record.

4. Having anxiously considered the material placed on record and upon a thoughtful scrutiny of the evidence, this Court is persuaded to make the following observations: -

4.1 Section 5A of the PC Act prescribes the category of officers who alone are competent to investigate offences under the said Act. For ready reference, Section 5A of the PC Act is r