# Kapur .f. I959 February 3. I959 The State of M adhy.i l'radesh v. Mubarak Ali

- **Citation:** [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 201
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1957-08-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1958
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. SuBBA RAo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kapur-f-i959-february-3-i959-the-state-of-m-adhy-i-l-radesh-v-mubarak-ali-1619
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Public servant receiving bribe-Investigation by
officer below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police-Permission
to investigate granted by Magistrate-Order not disclosing material
before Magistrate nor disclosing reasons for order-Permission, if
invalid-Investigation, scope of-Prevention of Corruption Act, r947
(2 of r947), s. 5A-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (Act 5 of
I898), S. 4(I)."
Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provided: "No police officer below the rank ......... of a deputy
Superintendent shall investigate any offence punishable under
s. 161, s. 165 or s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code or under s. 5(2)
of the Act without the order of. ........ a magistrate of the first
class ......... ".
(1) (1880) L.R. 7 I.A. ro;.
26
Kapur .f.
I959
February 3.
I959
The State of
M adhy.i l'radesh
v.
Mubarak Ali
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
On January II, 1955, B, the manager of a company, gave
information to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Police
Establishment, that the respondent, an Assistant Station Master,
was demanding a bribe for sending the goods belonging to the
company by raiL
The Sub-Inspector, after assisting B to trap
the respondent, came on the scene, questioned the latter, searched his person and recovered the marked notes and other articles
from him. The Sub-Inspector filed an application before the
District Magistrate, stating that he had been deputed to investigate the case and the permission might be given to him to do so
under s. 5A of the Act. On the application the Magistrate passed
the order '
1 permission given."
Neither the application nor the
order made thereon disclosed that any material was placed
before the Magistrate on the basis of which he gave permission.
A charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge. The respondent filed objections questioning, inter alia, the validity of the
Magistrate giving permission to the Sub-Inspector to make the
investigation. The Special Judge disallowed the objection. On
revision, the High Court set aside the order of the Special Judge
with a direction that" in order to rectify the defects and cure
the illegality" he should order the Deputy Superintendent of
Police to carry on the investigation himsef while the case
remained pending on his file.
The State preferred an appeal
against the order of the High Court by special leave:-
Held, that the statutory safeguards under s. 5A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act must strictly be complied with for
they were conceived in public interest and were provided as a
guarantee against frivolous and vexatious prosecution~.
A
Magistrate cannot surrender his discretion to a police officer,
but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material
made available to him at the stage of granting permission. He
must also be satisfied that there is sufficient reason owing to the
exigencies of the administrative convenience to entrust a subordinate officer with the investigation.
Where an officer other than the designated officer seeks to
make an investigation, he should get order of a Magistrate empowering him to do so before he proceeds to investigate, and it
is desirable that the order giving the permission should ordinarily on the face of it disclose the reasons for giving permission.
Where objection is taken by the accused that the order
giving permission was invalid, the prosecution, at the earliest
opportunity, must adduce evidence to support the contention
that the Magistrate gave the permission only after having satisfied himself on the advisability of doing so on the material placed
before him.
H. N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, [r955] r
S.C.R. n50 and Viswabhusan Naik v. The State of Orissa, [1955] I
S.C.R. 92, relied on.
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
203
Held, further, that an investigation starts after the police
x959
officer receives information in regard to an offence, and that as
under s. 5 of the Act attempt to obtain from any person any
The State of
gratif

## Text

(2) S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
201
Coal Company v. Boloram Mahata (1) was relied upon.
1959
Coutts Trotter, C. J., was also of the opinion that the
Mangalmurti
covenant was not too vague to be enforced. But this
v.
again was a case not of interfering with the deter- State of Bombay
mination of a valuer but of specific performance of a
contract of renewal and it was held that by taking
evidence even a vague and indefinite covenant relating
to renewal could be made definite.
In my opinion, therefore, the Court cannot go into
the question of correctness or otherwise of the determination of the lease and the appeal should therefore
be dismissed with costs.
BY OouRT.-In view of the opinion of the majority,
the appeals are allowed, setting aside the judgment
and decree of the High Court dated September 30,
1952.
No order as to costs of the hearing in this
Court.
.Appeals allowed .
. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
MUBARAK ALI
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and
K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.)
Criminal Law-Public servant receiving bribe-Investigation by
officer below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police-Permission
to investigate granted by Magistrate-Order not disclosing material
before Magistrate nor disclosing reasons for order-Permission, if
invalid-Investigation, scope of-Prevention of Corruption Act, r947
(2 of r947), s. 5A-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (Act 5 of
I898), S. 4(I)."
Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provided: "No police officer below the rank ......... of a deputy
Superintendent shall investigate any offence punishable under
s. 161, s. 165 or s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code or under s. 5(2)
of the Act without the order of. ........ a magistrate of the first
class ......... ".
(1) (1880) L.R. 7 I.A. ro;.
26
Kapur .f.
I959
February 3.
I959
The State of
M adhy.i l'radesh
v.
Mubarak Ali
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
On January II, 1955, B, the manager of a company, gave
information to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Police
Establishment, that the respondent, an Assistant Station Master,
was demanding a bribe for sending the goods belonging to the
company by raiL
The Sub-Inspector, after assisting B to trap
the respondent, came on the scene, questioned the latter, searched his person and recovered the marked notes and other articles
from him. The Sub-Inspector filed an application before the
District Magistrate, stating that he had been deputed to investigate the case and the permission might be given to him to do so
under s. 5A of the Act. On the application the Magistrate passed
the order '
1 permission given."
Neither the application nor the
order made thereon disclosed that any material was placed
before the Magistrate on the basis of which he gave permission.
A charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge. The respondent filed objections questioning, inter alia, the validity of the
Magistrate giving permission to the Sub-Inspector to make the
investigation. The Special Judge disallowed the objection. On
revision, the High Court set aside the order of the Special Judge
with a direction that" in order to rectify the defects and cure
the illegality" he should order the Deputy Superintendent of
Police to carry on the investigation himsef while the case
remained pending on his file.
The State preferred an appeal
against the order of the High Court by special leave:-
Held, that the statutory safeguards under s. 5A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act must strictly be complied with for
they were conceived in public interest and were provided as a
guarantee against frivolous and vexatious prosecution~.
A
Magistrate cannot surrender his discretion to a police officer,
but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material
made available to him at the stage of granting permission. He
must also be satisfied that there is sufficient reason owing to the
exigencies of the administrative convenience to entrust a subordinate officer with the investigation.
Where an officer other than the designated officer seeks to
make an investigation, he should get order of a Magistrate empowering him to do so before he proceeds to investigate, and it
is desirable that the order giving the permission should ordinarily on the face of it disclose the reasons for giving permission.
Where objection is taken by the accused that the order
giving permission was invalid, the prosecution, at the earliest
opportunity, must adduce evidence to support the contention
that the Magistrate gave the permission only after having satisfied himself on the advisability of doing so on the material placed
before him.
H. N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, [r955] r
S.C.R. n50 and Viswabhusan Naik v. The State of Orissa, [1955] I
S.C.R. 92, relied on.
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
203
Held, further, that an investigation starts after the police
x959
officer receives information in regard to an offence, and that as
under s. 5 of the Act attempt to obtain from any person any
The State of
gratification is in itself an offence, any steps taken by the Sub- Madhya Pradesh
Inspector after the information was given to him amounted to
v.
investigation.
Mubarak Ali
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 141 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated November. 28, 1957, of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 78 of
1957, arising out of the judgment and order dated
August 21, 1957, of the Court of Special Judge at
Gwalior in File No. 2/57 Special Case.
G. 0. Mathur and R.H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
1959. February 3.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SuBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave
Subba Rao J.
against the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at J abalpur directing the Special Judge, Indore, to
order the Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry on
the investigation afresh. The facts are simple.
One Shri Mohinder Nath Bhalla was the manager
of Daisy Sewing Machine Co. Ltd., Bhopal. On
January 11, 1955, between 12 and 1 p. m., he contacted the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Gwalior, and gave him the following information: The company had opened their stall in the
Gwalior Mela and. he (Shri Bhalla) had to book empty
wooden cases of machine and machine parts from
Golakmandir railway station, which was near th<?
Gwalior Mela, to New Delhi. When he went to the
station to enquire for booking the said cases, the Station Master demanded annas ten for each case as
illegal gratification, but he did not agree to it. Subsequently, the Assistant Station Master agreed to accept
annas eight for each case and asked him to bring the
wooden cases between 2 and 4 p. m. on the same day,
i.e., January 11, 1955. On this allegation he requested the police to take action " to stop the said sort of
z959
The State of
Madhya Pradesh
v.
Mubarak Ali
Subba Rao ].
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959] Supp.
corruption". The police officer went along with the
informant to his stall at Gwalior Mela and saw the
twenty wooden .cases_..:twelve big and eight smallready for booking.
The said Shri Bhalla gave the
police · officer a typed complaint signed by him and
duly attested by two witnesses.
With the assistance
of the police officer, a trap was laid. The numbers of
the rupee notes intended to be given as bribe to the
Assistant Station Master were entered in a memorandum which was attested by witnesses. The said rupee
notes were given to Shri Bhalla in the presence of the
witnesses. Shri Bhalla was instructed to pay the
amount to the Assistant Station Master when demanded by him in such a manner that the witnesses could
overhear the conversation and also see the Assistant
Station Master taking the bribe. He was also told
that on his giving a signal, the police would come on
the scene.
The plan was carried out in detail as
agreed. The Assistant Station Master, after some
bargaining, took the bribe, and after the act of
bribery was completed, Shri Bhalla gave the pre-
• arranged signal.
The Sub-Inspector then went to the
Station Office and disclosed his identity to the Assistant Station Master in the presence of witnesses and
asked him to produce the money taken by him as
bribe. The Assistant Station Master, when questioned by the Sub-Inspector, gave him his name and also
produced the notes which he had kept in his pocket.
The police officer took those notes and counted them.
The numbers on those notes tallied with those noted
in the memorandum. He then searched the person
of the Assistant Station Master and secured the articl~s found on him. He also searched the person of Shri
Bhalla and took from his shirt two currency notes,
which he did not give to the Assistant Station Master,
as the bargain was struck at a smaller amount, and
secured the same. The numbers of those notes also
tallied with the corresponding numbers noted in the
memorandum. Thereafter, a memorandum of the
articles recovered was prepared in the presence of the
witnesses and was duly attested by them. The forwarding note, together with the record copy of the
(2) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
205
R/R prepared in respect of the booking of the twenty
wooden cases to New Delhi, was taken possession of
and another memorandum was prepared in regard to
them.
An inventory of the twenty wooden cases
lying on the platform near the weighing machine as
booked by the Assistant Station Master was also prepared and the same was attested by the witnesses.
The Sub-Inspector, having regard to the aforesaid
facts, came to the conclusion that the facts disclosed
offences punishable under ss. 120-B and 161 of the
Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), had been committed
by the Assistant Station Master, Shri Mubarak Ali,
and the pointsman, Shri Mool Chand, of Golakamandir railway station. On the same day he sent a report
of the aforesaid facts to the Special Police Establishment, Office, Madhya Bharat. The office registered it
on January 14, 1955, in its register. Seven days thereafter, on January 21, 1955, the Sub-Inspector filed an
application . before the Additional District Magistrate
(Judicial), Gwalior, asking for permission to investigate the offence under the aforesaid sections.
The
record does not disclose what further steps were taken
by the Sub-Inspector after he obtained the said permission from the Additional District Magistrate. On
October 1, 1955, a charge-sheet was filed before the
Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Indore. It appears
from the record that soon after the case was taken up
for trial, the respondent filed objections questioning,
inter alia, the validity of the order of the Additional
District Magistrate giving permission to the SubInspect0r to make the investigation. But the scope
of the objections is not clear as they have not been
placed before us. It appears that the Special Judge
intended to take evidence on the question of delegation of power of investigation, but the prosecution
applied for adjournment on the ground that an appeal
had been filed in the High Court against a similar
order directing the prosecution to give evidence on the
said question and the same was pending there. The
learned Special Judge, though inclined not to give the
adjournment, made an order giving an adjournment
I959
The State of
Madhya Pradesh
v.
Mubarak Ali
Subba Rao].
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
'959
of three weeks on December 3, 1955, on the ground
The State of
that "the Specia~ Police Establishment Office might
Madhya Prndcsh not have any gnevance on that account". We do
v.
not know what transpired between December 3, 1955,
Muba•ak Ali
and the date of disposal of the objections by the
Special Judge, i.e., August 21, 1957.
On August 21,
Subba Rao f · 1957, the learned Special Judge made au order discharging Shri Moo! Chand, the pointsman, and charging Shri Mubarak Ali, the Assistant Station Master,
under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
By the said
order the learned Judge, presumably an officer different from the one who gave the adjournment in 1955,
disallowed the objection of the accnsed on the ground
that on the date when the Magistrate gave the sanction, there were many papers in connection with a case
against the accused, on observing which the Magistrate could have satisfied himselfwhetherthere was a
prima facie case or not against the accused and that
there was no reason to believe that at the time of
giving the sanction, the Magistrate did not peruse the
papers. The accused preferred a Revision against
the said order to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The High Court came to the conclusion that the SubInspector applied for permission ten days after investigation had started and that the Magistrate did
not satisfy himself that there were good and sufficient
reasons for authorising the officer of a lower rank to
conduct the investigation but had given the permission as a mere matter of routine. In the result, the
High Court set aside the order of the Special Judge
with a direction that " in order to rectify the defects
' and cure the illegality " he should order the Deputy
Superintendent of Police to carry on the investigation
himself while the case remains pending on his file".
The State preferred the present appeal against the
said order of the High Court.
Learned Counsel, appearing for the State, raised
before us two. points: , (i) the High Court was not
justified in holding that the Magistrate gave the
permission as a mere matter of routine without satisfying himself as to the advisability of giving such
permission ; (ii) the High Court was wrong in holding
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
207
that the investigation started ten days prior to the
1959
obtaining of permission of the Magistrate by the SubThe State of
Inspector.
Madhya Pradesh
To appreciate the first contention, it is necessary to
v .•
set out some of the relevant provisions of The PrevenMubarak Ali
tion of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), hereinafter
referred to as the Act.
Subba Rao J.
Section 3 (as it stood before the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1955 (50 of 1955):
" An offence punishable under section 161 or section 165 or section 165A of the Indian Penal Code
(Act 45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be a cognizable
offence for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained therein".
Section 4.
"(1) Where in any trial of an offence
punishable under section 161 or section 165 of the
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), it is proved that
an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has
agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or
for any other person, any gratification (other than
legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any
person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is
·proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to
accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or
that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive
or reward such as is mentioned in the said section 161,
or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a
consideration which he knows to be inadequate".
The Act was passed, as the preamble indicates, to
make more effective provisions for the prevention of
bribery and corruption among public servants. It
introduced a definition of the offence of criminal misconduct in discharging an official duty and new rules
of presumption against accused in the case of the said
offence.
But in the year 1952, by Act 59 of 1952,
presumably on the basis of the experience gained,
s. 5A was inserted in the Act to protect the public
servants against harassment and victimization. If it
was in the interest of the public that corruption should
be eradicated, it was equally in the interest of the
public that honest public servants should be able to
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp ..
'959
discharge their duties free from false, frivolous and
The State of
malici?us accusations. To. achieve this object, ss. 5A
Madhya Pradesh and 6 mtroduced the followmg two safeguards: (1) no
.
v.
police officer below the rank-(a) in the presidency
Mub~rak Ali
towns of Madras and Calcutta, of an assistant com-
. missioner of police, (b) in the presidency town of
Subba Rao f. Bombay, of a superintendent of police and (c) elsewhere, of a deputy superintendent of police, shall
investigate any ·offence punishable under s. 161, s. 165
or s. 165A of the Indian Penal Code or under sub-s. (2)
of s. 5 of the Act, without the order of a presidency
magistrate or a magistrate of the first class, as the case
may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant-see s. 5A ; (2) no court shall take cognizance of
an offence punishable under s. 161 or s. 164 or s. 165
of the Indian Penal Code or under s. 5(2) of the Act,
alleged to have been committed by a public servant,
except with the previous sanction, of the appropriate
Government-see s. 6.
These statutory safeguards
must be strictly complied with, for they were conceived in public interests and were provided as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions.
While in the case of an officer of assured status and
rank, the legislature was prepared to believe them
implicitly, it prescribed an additional guarantee in the
case of police officers ·below that rank, namely, the previous order of a presidency magistrate or a magistrate
of the first class, as the case may be. The magistrate's
status gives assurance to the bona fides of the investigation.
In such circumstances, it is self-evident that a
ma'gistrate cannot surrender his discretion to a police
offic0r, but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material made available to him at that stage. He
must also be satisfied that there is sufficient reason,
owing to the exigencies of administrative convenience,
to entrust a subordinate officer with the investigation.
This Court in H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The
State of Delhi (1) emphasised the necessity to adhere
strictly to the provisions of s. 5A of the Act. J agannadhadas, J.; who delivered the judgment of the
Court, observed at p. 1159 :
(•) [1955] I S.C.R. 1150.
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
209
" When, therefore, the Legislature thought fit to
x959
remov~ the protection ~rom t?e ~ublic servants, in so
The State of
far as it relates to the mvest1gat10n of the offences of Madhya Pradesh
corruption comprised in the Act, by making them
v.
cognisable, it may be presumed that it was considered
Mubarak Ali
necessary to provide a substituted safeguard from
undue harassment by re_quiring that the investigation
Subba Rao f.
is to be conducted normally by a police officer of a
designated high rank. Having regard therefore to the
peremptory language of sub-section (4) of section 5 of
the Act as well as to the policy apparently underlying
it, it is reasonably clear that the said provision must
be taken to be mandatory".
.
After adverting to the argument advanced on behalf
of the State, the learned Judge closed the discussion
thus at p. 1162:
" We are, therefore, clear in our opinion that
section 5(4) and proviso to section 3 of the Act and the
corresponding section 5-A of Act LIX of 1952 are
mandatory and not directory and that the investigation conducted in violation thereof bears the stamp of
illegality ".
This Court again considered the scope of s. 6 of the
Act in Biswabhusan. ·Naik v. The State of Orissa (1).
One of the questions raised there was that the .sanction
given by the Government was invalid. In rejecting
that contention Bose, J., observed at p. 95:
" The judgment of the Judicial Committee relates
to clause 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control)
Order, 1943, but the principles apply here. It is no
more necessary for the sanction under the Prevention
of Corruption Act to be in any particular form, or in
writing. or for it to set out the facts in respect of
which ·it is given than it was under clause 23 of the
Order which their Lordships wer{) considering. The
de:;iirability of such a course is obvious because when
the facts . are not set out in. the sanction proof has to
be given aliunde that sanction was given in respect of
the facts constituting . the offence charged, but an
(r) [1955] r S.C.R. 92.
27 .•
1959
The State of
Madhya Pradesh
v.
Mubarak Ali
Subba Rao j.
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
omission to do so is not fatal so long as the facts can
be, and are, proved in some other way".
While the former decision emphasises the importance
of the protection given by the Act to public servants
against harassment, the latter decision points out the
desirability of giving all the necessary facts in an
order giving sanction-the same applies to an order of
a Magistrate-and also the necessity of proof aliunde
of the said facts in case the facts are not disclosed in
the sanction. Applying the said two principles, we
must hold that in a case where an officer other than the
designated officer, seeks to make an investigation, he
should get the order of a Magistrate empowering him
to do so before he proceeds to investigate and it is
desirable that the order giving the permission should
ordinarily, on the face of it, disclo8e the reasons/for
giving the permission.
.Fm· one reason or other, if the
said salutary practice is not adopted in a particular
case, it is the duty oft.he prosecution to establish, if
that fact is denied, that the Magistrate in fact has
taken into consideration the relevant -circumstances
before granting the permission to a subordinate police
officer to investigate the case.
In the present case, though objection was taken by
the accused at the earliest stage in 1955 on the
ground that the order giving permission was invalid
no attempt was made by the prosecution, though
years have elapsed between the date of the petition
and that of the order of the Sessions Judge, to adduce
any evidence to support the contention that the
Magistrate gave the permission to the Sub-Inspector
only after satisfying himself on the advisability of
doing so on the material placed before him. The
only material that was placed before the Sessions
Judge was the application filed by the Sub-Inspector
before the Magistrate seeking the said permission and
the order made by him thereon. In that application
the Sub-Inspector stated that he had been deputed to
investigate the· case and therefore permission might
be given to him to do so under s. 5-A of the Act.
On that application, the Magistrate passed the
order "permission given". Neither the application
(2) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
211
nor the order made thereon discloses that any matex959
rial was placed before th~ ~fagistrate o_n _the basis
The State of
of which he gave the perm1ss10n.
Ex facie it appears Madhya Pradesh
to us, just like it appeared to the High Court,
v.
that the Magistrate did not realise the significance
Mubarak Ali
of his order giving permission, but only mechanically issued the order on the basis of the application
Subba Rao f.
which did not disclose any reason, presumably because
he thought that what was required was only a formal
compliance with the provisions of the section.
A
request was made before the High Court that an
opportunity should be given to the prosecution to
enable them to produce the necessary evidence to support the order of the Magistrate. But the learned
Judge of the High Court rightly did not accede to that
belated request. We, therefore, without any hesitation, agree with the High Court that the provisions of
s. 5A of the Act have not been strictly complied with
in this case.
In this view no other question arises for consideration. But as the learned Counsel appearing for the
State contended that the observations of the learned
Judge of the High Court that permission of the Magistrate was obtained ten days after the investigation
was started was wrong, it would be as well that we
considered the argument briefly. Section 4(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure defines " invest!gation "
as to include all the proceedings under that Code for
the collection of evidence conducted by the police
officer or other persons other than a Magistrate who
is authorised by the Magistrate in this behalf. Chapter XIV of the Code prescribes the procedure for
investigation.
Investigation starts after the police
officer receives information in regard to an offence.
Under the Code "investigation consists generally of
the following steps: (i) proceeding to the spot ; (ii)
ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the
case; (iii) discovery and arrest of the. suspected
offender; (iv) collection of evidence relating to the
commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the
examinat1on of various persons (including the accused)
and the reduction of their statements into writing, if
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1959] Supp.
z959'
the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizure
The state of
of things considered · trecess~ry for the investi~ation
Madhya Pradesh and to. b: produced• at· the trial; and (v) format10n of
v.
the opm10n as to whether oh the material' collected
Mubarak Ali
there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate
for trial and if so· taking the necessary steps for the'
Subba Rao f.
same by the filing of a charge-sheet under s. 173. "-· '
See H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singh'·v: The 'Stdfe ·of
Delhi (1).
From the narration of facts given supra, 'it
would be seen that in the present case Shri 'Bhalla
gave information to the Sub-Inspector on January 11,
1955, as regards the attempt by the Station Master as
well as the Assistant Station Master to take bribe
from him.
Under s. 5 of the Act, attempt to obtain
from any person for himself or for any other person
any gratification is in itself an offence and there'
fore the information certainly related to an offence.
Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector, after assisting Shri
Bhalla to trap the accused, came on the scene, questioned the accused, searched his person and recovered
the marked notes and other articles from him ; he
searched the person of the informant and recovered
the other notes marked but not given to the accused;
he took possession of the twenty wooden boxes intended
to be booked and the forwarding note together with
the record copy of the R/R; he got prepared relevant
memoranda for the aforesaid recoveries and got them
duly attested by witnesses; and thereafter on the basis
of his investigation he sent a report to the Special
Police Establishment Office, Indore. We do not know
on the material placed before us what further things
he did in the matter of investigation between the 14th
and 21st when he obtained the permission of the
District Magistrate. In the circumstances, we must
hold, agreeing with the High Court that the investigation in this case was started by the Sub-Inspector on
the 11th, i.e., ten days prior to his obtaining permission of the Magistrate.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(z) [1955] 1 S.C.R. II50.