Back
1990 Supreme(Mad) 542
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JANARTHANAM
N. A. Victor Immanuel and Others - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Crl.M.P. Nos. 9803 and 13918 of 1989
Decided On : 23 July 1990
The non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the entirety of the investigation proceedings, but can be considered for evaluating the other evidence on record during the trial.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 154, 157 - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 13(1)(A), (D) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) - INVESTIGATION - NON-COMPLIANCE OF SECTIONS 154 AND 157, CR.P.C. - EFFECT - DELAY IN SENDING THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT TO COURT - EFFECT - WHETHER THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 154 AND 157, CR.P.C. VITIATES THE ENTIRETY OF THE INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chengai Anna Detachment at Kancheepuram, on credible information, conducted a surprise check at the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu and found that the Officers and Staff were collecting weekly mamool from prohibition offenders and sharing the amount among themselves. A total amount of Rs. 25, 022.70 was recovered from the accused representing the mamool stated to have been collected from various arrack sellers. A case was registered under S. 13(1)(a) and (d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused filed petitions under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them, contending that the statement of the informant, which served as the basis for the registration of the case, was retracted and that the non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. vitiated the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the retracted statement of the informant did not render the case of the prosecution unsustainable, as the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and the prosecution could treat the informant as a hostile witness and elicit his prior statement during the trial. The court also held that the non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. did not vitiate the entirety of the investigation proceedings, but could be considered for evaluating the other evidence on record during the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the retracted statement of the informant rendered the case of the prosecution unsustainable? 2. Whether the non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. vitiated the entirety of the investigation proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and the prosecution can treat the informant as a hostile witness and elicit his prior statement during the trial. 2. The non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the entirety of the investigation proceedings, but can be considered for evaluating the other evidence on record during the trial.
Final Decision: Both the petitions were dismissed.
The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chengai Anna Detachment at Kancheepuram, on credible information, that the Officers and Staff of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu are collecting weekly mamool from prohibition offenders and sharing the amount among themselves, along with the Special Officer of District Inspection Cell, Collectorate, Kancheepuram and the party under the supervision of Thiru D. Manoharan, Additional Superintendent of Police, Police Investigating Agency Unit, Madras, conducted surprise check at the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu on 21-11-1988 between 12-15 to 16-30 hours.
2. At about 12 hours, before the party entering into the office, one Murugan of Kolathur village was found coming out of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Office and he was intercepted and questioned. He appeared to have stated that he paid a sum of Rs. 400/- as weekly mamool for selling illicit arrack to the Sub-Inspector of Police Thiru Mariappan (Accused 3) of that Unit on behalf of his relative Thiru Seenu alias Srinivasan, a prohibition offender. A statement to that effect was recorded from him.
3. Then the party entered into the office at 12-15 hours along with the said Murugan, who identified the Sub-Inspector of Police Thiru Mariappan, to whom he had paid this weekly mamool amount of Rs. 400/-. The Sub-Inspector of Police was interrogated and he in turn produced a sum of Rs. 2, 258/- stated to have been collected by him from various arrack sellers as mamool.
4. Likewise, Thiru N. A. Victor Immanuel (Accused 1) the Inspector of Police; Thiru M. Jothilingam, Sub-Inspector of police (Accused 2); Grade I.P.C. No. 1126 Thiru K. Thanigaivelu (Accused 4); Thiru G. Narasimhan P.C. 1107 (Accused 5); Thiru K. Chandrasekaran PC 564 (Accused 6); Thiru L. Sarathy, PC 1314 (Accused 7) and Thiru Teekaram PC 1073 (Accused 8) were questioned and a total amount of Rs. 25, 022.70 were recovered from accused 1 to 8 representing the mamool stated to have been collected from various arrack sellers. A list containing the names and addresses of the persons stated to have given the mamool to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing was also seized. A seizer mahazar has been prepared duly attested by Thiru A. M. Abdul Suban, Special Officer, District Inspection Cell and Thiru K. Ramanathan, Taluk Supply Officer, Chengalpattu and others.
5. When the party was engaged in such an operation, two other persons, namely, Thiru C. Venkatesan of Kalpat Vembakkam village and Thiru V. Gopal of Nallambakkam village who had come to the office with the sums of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 500/- respectively to pay their due share of weekly mamool, were questioned and their statements were also recorded in the presence of the official witnesses.
6. Accused 1 to 8 were arrested at 20.00 hours and released on bail at 21.00 hours on the same day with instructions to report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu on or before 5-12-1988. A wireless message about the arrest and release of the accused were sent to all concerned officers. A report was also sent to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madras requesting him to place the accused-Officers under suspension from the date and time of arrest. The houses of accused 1 and 2 were also searched under S. 165, Cr.P.C. after recording reasons for such search and the search proved futile, in the sense of non-recovery of any incriminating articles or records.
7. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption thereafter returned to Kancheepuram and registered a case in Crime No. 11/AC/88/CH under S. 13(1)(a) and (d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at 22.45 hours and took up further investigation. On the next day, the first information report along with seized articles, was sent to the Magistrate. On 30-11-1988, the said Murugan, on whose statement, the case had been registered, appeared to have given a retracted statement befor
