1974 (3) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the prosecution sanction.
2. Legality and prejudice of the investigation.
3. Non-examination of key witnesses and reliance on uncorroborated testimony.
4. Applicability of the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Prosecution Sanction:
The appellant contended that the prosecution sanction was invalid as P.W. 2, who granted the sanction, was not competent to appoint or dismiss the accused. The court examined the evidence and found that P.W. 2, a Divisional Operating Superintendent, had the delegated powers to dismiss a Class III servant like the accused. The High Court confirmed this by referring to the Indian Railway Establishment Code (Rule 134) and the relevant schedule, which authorized Divisional Officers (Senior Scale) to make appointments and dismissals. Therefore, the court rejected the plea of the illegality of the sanction, stating that the power to appoint also carried the power to dismiss, vested in P.W. 2.

2. Legality and Prejudice of the Investigation:
The appellant argued that the investigation was illegal and inflicted serious prejudice. The court clarified that the investigation was conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, which complied with Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found no violation of the law or serious prejudice, noting that the magistrate's involvement in laying the trap did not constitute an investigation. The court emphasized that the mandate of Section 5A was not violated, as the investigation was conducted by a competent officer.

3. Non-examination of Key Witnesses and Reliance on Uncorroborated Testimony:
The appellant argued that the non-examination of key witnesses, like the Deputy Superintendent of Police, should have led to an adverse inference. The court found that the testimony of P.W. 3, the Jawan, was corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of the marked currency note from the accused's right hand. The court dismissed the appellant's version as unproven and upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The court also noted that the involvement of an executive magistrate in the trap was not improper and did not taint the evidence.

4. Applicability of the Presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellant contended that the presumption under Section 4 of the Act was inapplicable as the charge was under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2). The court held that even if the statutory presumption was unavailable, the circumstances of the case allowed for a presumption of guilt. The court emphasized that the presence of the marked currency note in the accused's hand and the detention of the Jawan's bedding spoke for itself (res ipsa loquitur). The court found no credible explanation from the accused and dismissed the argument regarding the inapplicability of Section 4.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal. The court upheld the validity of the prosecution sanction, found the investigation legal and non-prejudicial, dismissed the argument regarding non-examination of key witnesses, and affirmed the applicability of the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.