9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officers. 2. Validity of the sanction of prosecution accorded by P.W.37 Shri Debaraj Panda. 3. Contributions to the family income by the respondent's sons. 4. Calculation of the respondent's household expenditure and assets. 5. Acceptance of the valuation report by the Special Judge. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officers: The investigation was carried out by P.W.41 Shri K. Biswal and P.W.42 Shri N. Vishnu. The investigation was deemed unfair and illegal as it was not carried out under the authorization of the Superintendent of Police, which is mandatory under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Investigating Officer, P.W.41, admitted that he had not filed any authorization letter. The Supreme Court emphasized that a statutory functionary must act in a manner laid down in the statute, and issuance of an oral direction is not contemplated under the Act. The failure to produce the authorization letter led to an adverse inference against the prosecution. 2. Validity of the sanction of prosecution accorded by P.W.37 Shri Debaraj Panda: P.W.37 Shri Debaraj Panda, the then Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South-Eastern Railway, was not competent to accord sanction for prosecution. He admitted that under the Rules, he was not the competent authority to remove the respondent from service. The purported delegation of power was not produced, and thus, no reliance could be placed on it. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments to emphasize that sanction granted by a person not authorized in law is a nullity. 3. Contributions to the family income by the respondent's sons: The High Court held that, considering societal norms in India, the sons of the respondent presumably made substantial contributions to their parents. The Special Judge had opined that only the eldest son made contributions, but this was based on the absence of statements from the other sons. The Supreme Court noted that the Investigating Officer did not produce the statements made by the respondent's other sons, which could have influenced the Special Judge's opinion. 4. Calculation of the respondent's household expenditure and assets: The prosecution alleged that the respondent and his family had acquired assets worth Rs. 11,66,873.84, which was disproportionate to their known sources of income. The High Court, however, concluded that if a reasonable margin of 10% is considered, the respondent could not be said to have failed to show means for acquiring the assets. The Supreme Court found that the investigation was not fair, as the Investigating Officer did not consider relevant documentary evidence or verify the status of the respondent and his wife with the Income Tax Department. 5. Acceptance of the valuation report by the Special Judge: The Special Judge relied on the valuation report submitted by the Engineer of the Income Tax Department (P.W.36) over the Valuer appointed by the accused (D.W.5). The High Court, however, found that the valuation report should consider societal norms and contributions from the respondent's sons. The Supreme Court emphasized that the investigation was flawed, and the Special Judge's reliance on the prosecution's valuation report was not justified without considering the defense's evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent. The investigation was deemed unfair and illegal due to the lack of proper authorization, and the sanction for prosecution was invalid as it was granted by an unauthorized person. The contributions of the respondent's sons and the calculation of household expenditure and assets were not properly considered by the Special Judge. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's acquittal was upheld.
|
