9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Proper sanction for investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Role of designated police officers in investigation under Section 5-A of the Act. 3. Validity of trap laid during investigation. 4. Allegations of prejudice due to selection of search witnesses. 5. Consideration of additional grounds not raised during trial. Analysis: 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced by the Special Judge. The High Court confirmed the conviction but enhanced the sentence, leading to the appeal. The main contention was the lack of proper sanction for investigation, as the Magistrate had not recorded reasons for authorizing a Police Inspector to investigate the offence of obtaining illegal gratification. The appellant argued that the investigation should have been conducted by a higher-ranking officer as per Section 5-A of the Act. 2. Section 5-A of the Act mandates that investigations regarding specified offences must be conducted by designated high-ranking police officers unless authorized by a Magistrate. The appellant's argument centered on the fact that a Police Inspector did not fall within the designated ranks, questioning the validity of the investigation conducted by the Inspector. The prosecution detailed the events leading to the trial, highlighting the illegal gratification demanded by the appellant for issuing a certificate, ultimately resulting in the conviction under Section 5(1)(d). 3. The validity of the trap laid during the investigation was also challenged. The appellant contended that the selection of search witnesses who were allegedly friendly with the investigating officers raised concerns about prejudice. However, the High Court found no evidence of ill-will or bias on the part of the witnesses, affirming the credibility of their testimonies and the conduct of the investigation. 4. Despite the appellant's claims of irregularities in the investigation process, the courts emphasized that the conviction could only be set aside if there was a miscarriage of justice due to the irregularities. The High Court rejected the appellant's version of events regarding the incident and upheld the conviction, emphasizing the need to demonstrate actual prejudice caused by the investigation to warrant setting aside the conviction. 5. The appellant sought to raise additional grounds during the appeal, pertaining to professional acts and entitlement to fees for counter-signing certificates. However, the court refused to entertain these additional grounds as they were not raised during the trial and lacked factual basis. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the conviction upheld, and the appellant ordered to serve the sentence as per the High Court's decision.
|
