1970 (3) TMI 164 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violent departure from provisions of the Code in investigation and cognizance of offenses.
2. Mala fide investigation and prosecution.
3. Discriminatory treatment against the appellant.
4. Applicability and violation of sections 162 and 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Propriety of taking self-incriminatory statements.
6. Interpretation of section 5(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violent Departure from Provisions of the Code in Investigation and Cognizance of Offenses:
The appellant argued that there had been a significant deviation from the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) during the investigation and cognizance of offenses, amounting to a denial of justice. The High Court noted that the investigation should have commenced under Chapter XIV of the CrPC when the Deputy Superintendent of Police started the enquiry on April 15, 1964. The court observed that substantial information and evidence had been gathered before the formal registration of the first information report (FIR), indicating that the investigation had effectively begun earlier. The court concluded that the delay in registering the FIR was an irregularity, but the statements recorded during the investigation were still subject to the provisions of section 162 of the CrPC.

2. Mala Fide Investigation and Prosecution:
The appellant claimed that the investigation and prosecution were initiated with malicious intent by his immediate junior officer, who was related to the Chief Minister. The High Court dismissed this allegation, finding no substantial evidence to support the claim of mala fide intent. The relationship between the junior officer and the Chief Minister was deemed too distant to have influenced the investigation.

3. Discriminatory Treatment Against the Appellant:
The appellant contended that he was being discriminated against, as others equally guilty were not being prosecuted and were promised immunity for aiding the prosecution. The High Court was not convinced by the plea of hostile discrimination, noting that the prosecution's decision not to secure judicial pardon for accomplices but to retain them as witnesses was a policy choice. The court emphasized that the appellant's position of influence and power over his subordinates justified the decision to prosecute him alone.

4. Applicability and Violation of Sections 162 and 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellant argued that the investigation violated sections 162 and 163 of the CrPC by taking signed statements from witnesses with assurances of immunity and then relying on their unsigned statements under section 161(3) for the purpose of section 173. The High Court found that there had been a deliberate violation of these provisions, as the investigating officers had taken signed statements and provided assurances of immunity to witnesses. The court directed the Special Judge to exclude from consideration all statements recorded under sections 161(3) and 164 that were found to be vitiated.

5. Propriety of Taking Self-Incriminatory Statements:
The High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which self-incriminatory statements were obtained from witnesses, noting that such statements were taken under inducement, threat, or promise. The court emphasized that the means adopted in the investigation must be fair and reasonable, and the use of questionable methods to secure convictions was not acceptable. The court directed the exclusion of self-incriminatory and confessional statements from consideration.

6. Interpretation of Section 5(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellant challenged the interpretation of section 5(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the High Court and the Special Judge. The Supreme Court clarified that the section applies to any person having a connection with the official functions of the public servant, including subordinates. The court held that the section aims to encompass not only outsiders but also subordinates or other persons connected with the official functions of the public servant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, affirming the High Court's findings of serious irregularities in the investigation to the prejudice of the appellant. The court did not endorse the High Court's view on the commencement date of the investigation under Chapter XIV of the CrPC but upheld the directions given by the High Court to the Special Judge, with the modifications indicated by the Supreme Court. The appeals were dismissed, and the directions to the Special Judge were to be followed accordingly.