9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the investigation under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Validity of the sanction for prosecution. 3. Merits of the conviction and appropriateness of the sentence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Investigation: The appellant argued that the investigation was irregular and not in accordance with Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 5A mandates that no police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence under the Act without the order of a magistrate of the first class. Initially, the investigation was conducted by a sub-inspector of police, which was later taken over by an authorized officer who merely reviewed the earlier investigation papers. The Court referenced the case of H.N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, which held that Section 5A is mandatory, and an investigation violating it is illegal. However, the Court emphasized that such an illegality does not vitiate the trial unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice due to the irregular investigation, and thus, the Court rejected this contention. 2. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution: The appellant contended that there was no proper sanction for the additional three cases that were split from the original four cases, and that the sanction did not specifically cover Section 5(1)(c) of the Act. The Court clarified that the amounts involved in the split cases were included in the original four cases for which there was sanction. Therefore, the sanction for the original cases extended to the split cases as well. Regarding the argument that the sanction did not cover Section 5(1)(c), the Court noted that the sanction mentioned misappropriation and embezzlement, which are covered under Section 5(1)(c). Thus, the sanction was deemed sufficient for the Special Judge to take cognizance of the cases. 3. Merits of the Conviction and Appropriateness of the Sentence: The appellant did not dispute the convictions but argued that the circumstances warranted a more lenient sentence. The evidence showed that the appellant was using the Board's money to advance it to officers and servants of the Board, including the Executive Officer, which was a well-known and long-standing practice. The Court acknowledged the scandalous state of affairs and noted that the appellant might have felt compelled to oblige the officers and servants to avoid their displeasure. Considering the appellant's role and the prolonged trial of eleven years, the Court found merit in the argument that the appellant was more sinned against than sinning. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, noting that Mr. Mathur, representing the respondent State, did not press for the confirmation of the reduced sentence by the High Court. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed with the modification that the sentence in each case was reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant, if on bail, was to be discharged from his bail bonds in respect of these appeals. The Court emphasized that the sentence already served, along with the prolonged duration of the trial, was sufficient punishment for the appellant.
|
