1959 (2) TMI 28 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Magistrate's permission for investigation.
2. Timing of the investigation commencement relative to obtaining the Magistrate's permission.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Magistrate's Permission for Investigation
The primary issue was whether the Magistrate gave permission for investigation as a mere routine without satisfying himself about the advisability of granting such permission. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, specifically Section 5A, mandates that no police officer below a certain rank can investigate offenses under the Act without the order of a Magistrate. This provision aims to protect public servants from undue harassment and frivolous accusations. The Court emphasized the necessity for the Magistrate to exercise discretion and be satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for authorizing a lower-ranked officer to conduct the investigation.

In this case, the Sub-Inspector filed an application on January 21, 1955, seeking permission to investigate, which the Magistrate granted with a simple "permission given" endorsement. The application did not disclose any material or reasons, and the Magistrate's order did not indicate that he had considered any relevant circumstances before granting permission. The High Court and the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had likely issued the order mechanically, without realizing its significance, thereby not complying strictly with Section 5A.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the Magistrate had taken into consideration the relevant circumstances before granting permission. The Court agreed with the High Court that the provisions of Section 5A had not been strictly complied with, rendering the investigation unauthorized.

2. Timing of the Investigation Commencement Relative to Obtaining the Magistrate's Permission
The second issue was whether the investigation had started ten days before the Sub-Inspector obtained the Magistrate's permission. According to Section 4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "investigation" includes all proceedings for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer. The investigation typically involves steps like proceeding to the spot, ascertaining facts, arresting suspects, collecting evidence, and forming an opinion on whether to charge the accused.

In this case, the Sub-Inspector received information about the bribery attempt on January 11, 1955, and immediately took several investigative actions, including laying a trap, questioning the accused, searching their persons, and recovering marked notes and other articles. He also prepared relevant memoranda and sent a report to the Special Police Establishment Office. These actions constituted the commencement of the investigation.

The Court agreed with the High Court that the investigation had indeed started on January 11, 1955, which was ten days before the Sub-Inspector obtained the Magistrate's permission on January 21, 1955. Therefore, the investigation was conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5A.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the investigation was unauthorized due to the Magistrate's routine granting of permission without satisfying himself about the advisability and the investigation starting before obtaining the required permission. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's direction for the Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry on the investigation afresh was upheld.