1972 (2) TMI 92 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under IPC sections 218, 477A, 409 read with section 34.
2. Conviction under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Legality of the investigation process.
4. Applicability of section 23 of the Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1942.
5. Request for reduction of sentence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under IPC sections 218, 477A, 409 read with section 34:
The appellants were convicted under sections 218, 477A, 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for fabricating false documents and committing criminal breach of trust. They prepared documents showing that rectification work worth Rs. 369.07 had been done and payments had been made to laborers, even though no such work was carried out. The High Court affirmed the findings of the trial court that the accused had prepared false documents and committed criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court found no cogent ground to disagree with these findings, noting that the accused had admitted to fabricating the documents and not making any payments in March or April 1966.

2. Conviction under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellants were also convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for criminal misconduct. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and the High Court that the accused were guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of their duties. The argument that the rectification work was completed after May 11, 1966, was not accepted as it did not absolve the accused of their criminal liability for preparing false documents and misappropriating funds earlier.

3. Legality of the investigation process:
The appellants contended that the investigation was illegal because Sub Inspector Patil conducted an enquiry before receiving permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court found no material on record to show that the accused were prejudiced due to this alleged non-compliance. It held that an illegality in the investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the court to try the accused unless it causes a miscarriage of justice. Since no miscarriage of justice was shown, the conviction could not be set aside on this ground.

4. Applicability of section 23 of the Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1942:
The appellants argued that the prosecution was barred by time under section 23 of the Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1942, which requires prosecution within six months of the act complained of. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that sub-section (2) of section 23 applies to acts done under the Act in good faith. The appellants' acts of preparing false documents and committing criminal breach of trust were not done in good faith or under the Act, but were in breach and disregard of their duties.

5. Request for reduction of sentence:
The appellants requested a reduction of their sentence. However, the Supreme Court saw no cogent ground to interfere with the sentence imposed by the lower courts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants for fabricating false documents, committing criminal breach of trust, and criminal misconduct under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding the legality of the investigation and the applicability of section 23 of the Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1942. The request for reduction of sentence was also denied.