9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the investigation under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Interpretation of the burden of proof under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Validity of the sanction granted under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Investigation under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The appellant contended that the investigation was conducted without proper authority. Specifically, it was argued that PW 17, an Inspector of Police, could not investigate without prior permission from a first-class magistrate. The permission obtained on March 12, 1964, was only to lay a trap, and the permission to investigate was obtained on March 21, 1964, after the investigation was over. The Court clarified that "laying the trap" is part of the investigation, as per State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali. Therefore, the initial permission under Section 5A covered the entire investigation, making the second permission superfluous. The Court concluded that there was no basis for the contention that any portion of the investigation was done without authority. 2. Interpretation of the Burden of Proof under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The appellant admitted receiving Rs. 5 from PW 4 but claimed it was a loan repayment. Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act presumes that the money was received as a bribe unless proven otherwise by the appellant. The appellant argued that the presumption should only arise if the prosecution proves the payment was a bribe. The Court, citing C.I. Emden v. State of U.P., held that the presumption arises when it is shown that the accused received money not as legal remuneration. The word "gratification" was given its literal dictionary meaning, not limited to bribes. The Court emphasized that the burden on the accused under Section 4 is to prove the contrary by a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's evidence was not accepted by the trial court or the High Court, and thus, he failed to discharge his burden. 3. Validity of the Sanction Granted under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The appellant argued that the sanction to prosecute, granted by PW 1, the Chief Medical Officer, was invalid as he was not the competent authority to remove the appellant from office. Section 6(1) requires the sanction from the authority competent to remove the accused from office. PW 1 claimed he was competent, but this was challenged. The Court found that the trial court and High Court erred in relying on oral evidence to decide the validity of the sanction. The Court examined the relevant rules and found no evidence that PW 1 had the delegated power to remove the appellant. As per the Indian Railway Establishment Code and subsequent rules, the head of the department could not impose removal or dismissal on Class III officers. Therefore, the Court concluded that PW 1 was not competent to grant the sanction, rendering the prosecution invalid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction. The appellant's bail bond was canceled, and the appeal was allowed.
|
