9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the presumption under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after its repeal. 2. Compliance with statutory safeguards under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Alleged defectiveness of the charge under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the presumption under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after its repeal: The appellant contended that since Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was repealed by Parliament while the appeal was pending in the High Court, the presumption enacted in Section 5(3) was not available to the prosecuting authorities. The appellant argued that the High Court should not have invoked this presumption. The court noted that alterations in procedural law are generally retrospective unless there is a specific reason not to be. However, the court emphasized that the amended law relating to procedure operates retrospectively, but it does not affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed. Since the trial and conviction of the appellant by the Special Judge occurred before the repeal, the High Court was correct in invoking the presumption under Section 5(3) of the Act. Therefore, the argument of the appellant on this aspect was rejected. 2. Compliance with statutory safeguards under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The appellant argued that the statutory safeguards under Section 5A of the Act were not complied with, specifically that the Magistrate did not give reasons for entrusting the investigation to a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Section 5A stipulates that no police officer below a certain rank shall investigate offenses under the Act without the order of a Magistrate. In this case, the officer-in-charge of Sahibganj police station filed a petition, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police endorsed it, suggesting Inspector Haldhar investigate the case. The Magistrate's order authorized Inspector Haldhar to investigate, citing that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was busy and the case required full-time investigation. The High Court concluded that the order was not mechanically passed and was neither illegal nor improper. Thus, the appellant's argument on this point was rejected. 3. Alleged defectiveness of the charge under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The appellant claimed that the charge under Section 5(2) was defective as it lacked specific particulars of misconduct under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 5(1). The charge stated that the appellant habitually accepted gratifications, obtained valuable things without consideration, misappropriated properties, and abused his position to obtain pecuniary advantage. The appellant argued that the lack of specifics deprived him of the opportunity to rebut the presumption under Section 5(3). However, the court noted that while the charge should have contained better particulars, the appellant never complained about this in the trial court or the High Court. The record showed that the appellant understood the case against him and presented his evidence. According to Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no error or omission in the charge is material unless it misled the accused and caused a failure of justice. Since the appellant did not raise any objections earlier, his argument on this point was rejected. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, confirming the conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and reducing the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.
|
