# I959 The T'atna Electric Supfly Co., Ltd., Patna v. The Patna

- **Citation:** [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 776
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1957
- **Bench:** Jafer !Mam, J. L. Kapur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i959-the-t-atna-electric-supfly-co-ltd-patna-v-the-patna-1660
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Trial-Bribery and criminal miscond14ct-Accused
committed to Court of Session-Law amended making such cases
triable by Special Judge-Sessions Judge, if has jurisdiction to continue trial·-Investigation by officer below Deputy Superintendent of
Police-Whether trial vi(iated-Prevention of Corruption Act, I947
(II of Ig47), s. 5-A-Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, I952 (46 of
I952), S. IO.
.
The appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial
of offences under s. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and
s. r6r Indian Penal Code. Shortly thereafter, the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1952 came into force.
An Assistant Sessions
Judge tried the appellant aud convicted him of the offences
charged. The appellant contended that the trial was vitiated as
the investigation had been mad~ by a police officer below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that the Assistant
Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case as it was triable by a Special Judge.
"f<
Held that, the Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
777
try the case. Section IO of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
r959
1952 transferred only cases pending before Magistrates to Special
Judges but did not transfer cases which had been committed to Din Dayal Sha.ma
Court of Session before the Act came into force.
v.
Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The State, [1957] S.C.R.
The State of
678, relied on.
Uttar Pradesh
Held further that, the conviction was not vitiated by the
investigation having been made by an officer below the rank of a
Deputy Superintendent of Police. If the matter had been urged
before the Courts at an early stage it would have had to take
steps to get the illegality cured by ordering fresh investigations.
But the appellant could not be permitted to raise the questions
whether the objection regarding investigation had been taken at
the earliest stage as the question had not been raised in the
Courts below.
H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, [1955] r S.C.R. n50,
relied on.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 95 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated December 16, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Revision No. 1403 of 1953, arising
out of the Judgment and order dated August 6, 1953,
of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at
Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1953.
H.J. Umrigar and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
G. 0. Mathur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the
respondent.
1959. April 23.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
IMAM, J.-The appellant was convicted under s. 5(2)
Imam J.
of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under s. 161
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's
rigorous imprisonment on each count. The sentences
were made to run concurrently.
On the facts found by the courts below the appellant accepted Rs. 20/- as illegal gratification from one
Malekchand who had applied for allotment of a house.
The appellant was employed at that time as a clerk
in the office of the District Relief and Rehabilitation
Office, Meerut. The aforesaid sum of money was
accepted by the appellant as bribe with a view to getting a house allotted to Malekchand. There can be
98
.
'
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
'959
no question that., on the facts found, the appellant
Din Dayal Sharma was guilty both uuder s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Cor-
. v.
ruption Act and under s. 161 of the Indian Penal
The State of
Code.
Uttar Prndesh
The first point taken was that the investigation had
Imam·].
taken place by a police officer below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Consequently, the
investigation had taken place in contravention of the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The
conviction of the appellant was therefore vitiated.
This point was taken before the Additional Sessions
Judge who had heard the appeal of the appellant
against his conviction. The Additional Sessions Judge
referred to a decision of

## Text

I959
The T'atna
Electric Supfly
Co., Ltd., Patna
v.
The Patna
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp.
national economy. In fairness to the Tribunals we
ought to add that if the tribunals had not taken an
erroneous view about the effect of the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government they would not have
granted the demand made by the respondent for
housing accommodation. Since we hold that on the
Elecfric supply merits the award cannot be sustained we do not think
Workers' Union it is necessary to consider whether the expenditure
Gajcndragadkar J. involved in the construction of quarters would be
admissible under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act.
1959
April 23.
The result is the appeal succeeds and the award
under appeal is set aside. , In the circumstances of
this case we think it would be fair that the parties
should bear their own costs.
Appeal allowed.
DIN DAYAL SHARMA
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(JAFER !MAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Bribery and criminal miscond14ct-Accused
committed to Court of Session-Law amended making such cases
triable by Special Judge-Sessions Judge, if has jurisdiction to continue trial·-Investigation by officer below Deputy Superintendent of
Police-Whether trial vi(iated-Prevention of Corruption Act, I947
(II of Ig47), s. 5-A-Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, I952 (46 of
I952), S. IO.
.
The appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial
of offences under s. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and
s. r6r Indian Penal Code. Shortly thereafter, the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1952 came into force.
An Assistant Sessions
Judge tried the appellant aud convicted him of the offences
charged. The appellant contended that the trial was vitiated as
the investigation had been mad~ by a police officer below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that the Assistant
Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case as it was triable by a Special Judge.
"f<
Held that, the Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
777
try the case. Section IO of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
r959
1952 transferred only cases pending before Magistrates to Special
Judges but did not transfer cases which had been committed to Din Dayal Sha.ma
Court of Session before the Act came into force.
v.
Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The State, [1957] S.C.R.
The State of
678, relied on.
Uttar Pradesh
Held further that, the conviction was not vitiated by the
investigation having been made by an officer below the rank of a
Deputy Superintendent of Police. If the matter had been urged
before the Courts at an early stage it would have had to take
steps to get the illegality cured by ordering fresh investigations.
But the appellant could not be permitted to raise the questions
whether the objection regarding investigation had been taken at
the earliest stage as the question had not been raised in the
Courts below.
H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, [1955] r S.C.R. n50,
relied on.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 95 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated December 16, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Revision No. 1403 of 1953, arising
out of the Judgment and order dated August 6, 1953,
of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at
Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1953.
H.J. Umrigar and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
G. 0. Mathur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the
respondent.
1959. April 23.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
IMAM, J.-The appellant was convicted under s. 5(2)
Imam J.
of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under s. 161
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's
rigorous imprisonment on each count. The sentences
were made to run concurrently.
On the facts found by the courts below the appellant accepted Rs. 20/- as illegal gratification from one
Malekchand who had applied for allotment of a house.
The appellant was employed at that time as a clerk
in the office of the District Relief and Rehabilitation
Office, Meerut. The aforesaid sum of money was
accepted by the appellant as bribe with a view to getting a house allotted to Malekchand. There can be
98
.
'
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
'959
no question that., on the facts found, the appellant
Din Dayal Sharma was guilty both uuder s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Cor-
. v.
ruption Act and under s. 161 of the Indian Penal
The State of
Code.
Uttar Prndesh
The first point taken was that the investigation had
Imam·].
taken place by a police officer below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Consequently, the
investigation had taken place in contravention of the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The
conviction of the appellant was therefore vitiated.
This point was taken before the Additional Sessions
Judge who had heard the appeal of the appellant
against his conviction. The Additional Sessions Judge
referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court
which supported the submission made on behalf of the
appellant. He also referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court to the contrary effect.
He followed,
as he was bound to follow, the decision of the Allahabad High Court. The decision of this Court in the
case of H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. 'Phe State
of Delhi(') does not support the submission made by
Mr. Umrigar on behalf of the appellant.
He, however, referred to a passage in the aforesaid cited decision at page 1164 to the effect that where a breach of
a mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge of
the court at a sufficiently early stage, the court, while
not declining cognizance, would have to take the
necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the
defect rectified by ordering such investigation as the
circumstances of the case may i;all for. It ha.s not
been shown to our satisfaction that the attention of
the trial court was drawn at an early stage to any
breach of the provisions of.the Prevention of Corruption Act.
There had been an enquiry before commitment to the Sessions.
It is clear that during these
proceedings before commitment no objection was raised that the investigation had taken place by a police
officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police in contravention of the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The decision of this
Court was given on December 14, 1954, and the High
Court j).1dgment in the present case was delivered on
{I) [1955] I S.C.R. u50, u64.
',,.
' (2) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
779
\
........ .
"December 16, 1955. No point was taken before the
1959
High Court to the effect that the investigation had n· D -
15,
.b
db
ffi
1
h
kfD
u1aya11a7ffl.4
een ma e y an o cer be ow t e ran
o
eputy
v.
Superintendent of Police in contravention of the proThe stat• of
visions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such an
Uttar Pradesh
objection should have been taken if the appellant was
prepared to establish before the High Court that ·the.
1"'"m J.
objection had been taken at a sufficiently early stage
and that in view of the decision of this Court in the
case cited the trial court ought not have proceeded
with the trial unless the defect had been removed.
The decision of this Court in the case cited is clear,
however, that generally a conviction is not vitiated
because there had not been strict compliance ·with the
provisions of the Prevention ofCurruption Act in the
matter of investigation by a police officer.
As· to
whether the objection was taken at a siifficiently early
stage is a question of fact and ought to have been
raised in the High Court as the decision of this Court
in the case cited had been delivered something like a
year before. As this point in this form was not raised
before the High Court we cannot allow it to be raised
at this stage.
It was next contended that the Assistant Sessions
Judge who tried the case had no jurisdiction to try
the case as it was triable by a Special Judge only. It
is clear, however, that the case had been committed
to the Court of Session before the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act,' 1952, came. into force. Under s. IO
of this Act all cases pending before the Court of a
Magistrate were transferred to the Court of a Special
Judge .. Section 10 did not purport to transfer c11oses,
pending in the Court of Session at the commencement
of the Act, to the Court of the Special Judge. In the
case of Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The
State('}, this Court observed " The cases which were
pending before the courts of sessions did not require to
· be so transferred because they would be tried by the
procedure obtaining in the courts of sessions ancl
nothing further required to be done." It seems clear to
us, therefore, that the Assistant Sessions Judge had
jurisdiction to try the case as the same had been
{I) [1957] S.C.R. 678, 686.
·,..._.
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
.
r959
pending in the court of Session when the Act came
. · ·. -
into force. ·
Din Dayal Sha,ma
.
.
•
v.
The third content10n raised was that the courts
The state of
below had not correctly appreciated the nature, extent
u11a .. P;adesh and the quantum of proof required for raising the
presumption under s. 4 of the Prevention of CorrupIm,am J.
tion Act. The High Court's judgment does not show
that that Court in any way raised any presumption
under s. 4 against the appellant. The following passage from the High Court's judgment would make this
clear:
•
"It was next contended that the evidence on the
~ecord does not satisfactorily prove that the sum of
Rs. 20 was received by the applicant as illegal gratification. The finding on this point is a finding of fact. ·
I have gone through the judgment of. both the courts
below and . I see no satisfactory reason to disagree
with the concurrent finding of both the courts on this -~
point. There is ample evidence on behalf of the prosecution to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 20 was
~ paid by Malekchand to the applicant on his demand
in order to secure the allotment of a house. There
does not appear any satisfactory reason why Malekchand should have paid Rs. 20 to the applicant to
procure wheat.for him."
·
There is, therefore, no question of. any presumption
being raised against the appellant. On the contrary,
his defence that he had taken the sμm of Rs. 20 from
l\Ialekchand to purchase wheat for him was disbelieved and l\falekchand's evidence that he had taken this
money in order to secure an allotment of a house for
l\Ialekchand was accepted. There appears to be no
substance in the point raised.
It was next urged that the matter of sentence may
be considered. The incident took place in 1951 and
the appellant has been· on bail and it would not bo
desirable to send him back to jail. The sentence of one
year's imprisonment for corruption by a public servant
cannot, however, be considered as unduly severe.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed •