# MUNI LAL v. DELm ADMINISTRATION March 30, 1971

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 276
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-03-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 26-D of 1966
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/muni-lal-v-delm-administration-march-30-1971-5241
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), s. SA-If officer conducting
investigation should take every step hinzself-Objection not taken
during
trial- Effect of irregularity or illegality-If conviction illegal.
The appellant was charged with the offences under s. S(2) read with
s. S(l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and s. 161, I.P.C. The
investigation was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police but some
of the statements, reports and memoranda were written, not by the Dy.
Superintendent of Police, but by the Sub-Inspector. The appellant did not
raise any objection before or during the trial that an illegality or irreau.}a·
rity was committed during investigation. At the stage of argument, it f'a~
contended that there was a violation of s. S(A). The appellant was con·
victed and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court. In appeol
to this Court, on the questions: (I) whether there was violation of s. 5(A1
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and (2) whether such violation render·
ed the trial and conviction of the appellant illegal,
HELD: (I) The Dy. Superintendent of Police gave evidence that the
entire investigation was done by him and that the statements and reports
which were in the hand-writing of the Sub-Inspector were written by tho
latter on his dictation and under his supervision.
The evidence in the
case also :stablished that the Dy. Superintendent of Police was in com·
plete charge of the investigation giving necessary directions and never withdrew from the case at any stage. Though s. SA is mandatory that tho
investigation should be conducted by the officer of the appropriate rank
it is not necessary that every one of the steps in the investigation should
be done by him in person or that he could not take the assistance of his
deputies or that he was bound to go through each one of the steps ~imself.
Therefore, there was no irregularity or illegality in the conduct of the
investigation. [280F-G ; 282A-B, F-H; 283B]
(2) Where no objection was raised before trial commenced regardin11
any illegality or irregularity committed durinll investigation and where the
cognizance of case in fact had been taken and the case had proceeded to
termination the invalidity of the preceeding investigation would not vitiate
the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby and the accused has been prejudiced. [281A·B, C·D, G]
11. N. Rishbud and lndtr Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1150
and Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 88, followed.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak A.Ii, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 201,
referred to.

## Text

276
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNI LAL
v.
DELm ADMINISTRATION
March 30, 1971.
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. ~y. JJ.)
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), s. SA-If officer conducting
investigation should take every step hinzself-Objection not taken
during
trial- Effect of irregularity or illegality-If conviction illegal.
The appellant was charged with the offences under s. S(2) read with
s. S(l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and s. 161, I.P.C. The
investigation was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police but some
of the statements, reports and memoranda were written, not by the Dy.
Superintendent of Police, but by the Sub-Inspector. The appellant did not
raise any objection before or during the trial that an illegality or irreau.}a·
rity was committed during investigation. At the stage of argument, it f'a~
contended that there was a violation of s. S(A). The appellant was con·
victed and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court. In appeol
to this Court, on the questions: (I) whether there was violation of s. 5(A1
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and (2) whether such violation render·
ed the trial and conviction of the appellant illegal,
HELD: (I) The Dy. Superintendent of Police gave evidence that the
entire investigation was done by him and that the statements and reports
which were in the hand-writing of the Sub-Inspector were written by tho
latter on his dictation and under his supervision.
The evidence in the
case also :stablished that the Dy. Superintendent of Police was in com·
plete charge of the investigation giving necessary directions and never withdrew from the case at any stage. Though s. SA is mandatory that tho
investigation should be conducted by the officer of the appropriate rank
it is not necessary that every one of the steps in the investigation should
be done by him in person or that he could not take the assistance of his
deputies or that he was bound to go through each one of the steps ~imself.
Therefore, there was no irregularity or illegality in the conduct of the
investigation. [280F-G ; 282A-B, F-H; 283B]
(2) Where no objection was raised before trial commenced regardin11
any illegality or irregularity committed durinll investigation and where the
cognizance of case in fact had been taken and the case had proceeded to
termination the invalidity of the preceeding investigation would not vitiate
the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby and the accused has been prejudiced. [281A·B, C·D, G]
11. N. Rishbud and lndtr Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1150
and Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 88, followed.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak A.Ii, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 201,
referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 23
crf 1968.
MUNI LAL'· DELHI ADMN. (Vaidialingam, J.)
277
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
A
September 18, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 26-D of 1966.
E. C. Agarwal, for the appellant.
G. N. Dikshit and .R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Valdi•linpm, J.-This a.ppeal. by special, leave, is directed
against the judgment and order dated September 18, 1967 of the
Delhi High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for
offences under Sections 5(2) read with Section (5) (!) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as
the Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High
Court also confirmed the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment.
In addition to this the Special Judge had imposed a tine
of Rs. 500; but the High Court reduced the fine to Rs. 100. This
was the only modification effected by the High Court with regard
to the sentence.
The case foe the prosecution was as follows :
The appel·
lant was employed in August, 1965 as Head Constable attached
to Hauz Qazi Police Station, Delhi.
One Som Nath used to park
his rehri in the chowk of Hauz Qazi and sell Kulchey and Chho-
/ey.
Soon Nath had been plying this trade for about 8 or 10
years without payment of the necessary tax to the Municipal Corporation and without taking any licence. The appellant used to
harass and threaten Som Nath that unless he paid bribe to him,
l;ie will be prosecuted. In particular on August 25, 1965 the
appellant demanded from Som Nath as bribe a sum of Rs. 20
per mo11th for not harassing him for carrying on his business
without the necessary licence.
Som Nath expressed his inability
to pay such a heavy amount and ultimately the appellant agreed
to receive Rs. 10 per month. He promised to make the first payment on August 26, 1965 between 2 and 3 P. M. At about II
A. M. on August 26, 1965, Som Nath approached Sri Harnaik
Singh, Deputy Superiritendent of Police, attached to the Anti Corruption Department and reported about the demand made by the
appellant and to his having ultimately agreed to pay a sum of
Rs. 10 between 2 and 3 P. M. on that day.
This complaint was
reduced to writing by Harnaik Singh, who has given evidence as
P. W. 6.. P. W. 6, summoned two employees from the office of
the Deputy Collector, Tees Hazari, Sri Navneet Lal (P. W. 2) and
Harl Kishan (P. W. 3) and in their presence took froin P. W. I the
currency note of Rs. I 0 and after noting the number handed .it
over to P. W. I with the instruction to aive the same to the appel'.
lant 011 demand. P. W. I was also informed that the police party
B
c
D
E
r
G
H
278
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
will be hiding nearby and that he should give a particuar signal
after paying the amount to the appellant.
The police party headed by P. W. 6 together with the complainant and P. Ws. 2 and 3 proceeded near the rehri of P. W. 1.
While P. W. 1 went to the rehri, the police party and P. Ws. 2
and 3 remained behind in hiding.
At about 2 · 45 P. M. the appellant came to the rehri of P. W. 1 and told him "give my thing to
me".
P. W. 1 placed the currency note on the palm of
the
appellant saying that he was making the payment with considerable difficulty.
On signal given by P. W. 1, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with others immediately went to the rehri
of P. W. 1 and on being told by P. W. 1 that he had paid Rs. 10/-
to the appellant, the latter was asked to produce the same. P. W.
6 made a search of the appellant and recovered the currency note
Ex. P. 1 from his pocket.
The number of the currency note was
checked with the number already recorded and it tallied. P. Ws. 2
and 3 also witnessed the search and seizure made by P. W. 6. Accordingly the appellant was prosecuted for the offences mentioned
above.
The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of P. W. 1 Som
Nath and the two persons who had witnessed the search and
;eisure P. Ws. 2 and 3 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
P. W. 6.
Certain other witnesses were also examined.
The appellant denied that he had either demanded or received any bribe from P. W. I He pleaded that the alleged recovery
of the currency note from him is false and that the witnesses had
been tutored to give false evidence at the instance of Ved Prakash,
Sub-In~pector of Police, who was his enemy. According to the
appellant, he had declined to accede to the request of Ved Prakash
to give false evidence against two Sub-Inspectors of Police, Phool
Singh and Jeeva Singh, whom he wanted to be implicated in a
case.
The appellant also examined two witnesses.
D. W. I who
was also having a rehri in the same chowk, had stated that the
appellant had not received any bribe from P. W. 1 and that he also
informed P. W. 6 about the same.
I;>. W. 2 was the Secretary of
the Rehri Labour Union and he has deposed to the fact that none
of the members of the Union had ever complained against the
appellant and that the latter had nothing to do with the prosecution of people under Section 34 of the Police Act.
The learned Special Judge accepted the evidence of P. Ws. l,
2, 3 and 6, and rejected the evidence of D. Ws. l and 2. The view
of the learned Special Judge was that D. W. 1 was giving false
evidence on account of business friendship and that D. W. 2 had
said nothing about the incident in question.
In this view :he
MUNI LAL v. DBLHI ADMN. (Valdlalingam, J.)
Special Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences with which
he was charged and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. SOO.
On appeal to the High Court, the appellant pressed the objection that the investigation of the case was done in violation of the
provisions of Section SA of the Act. According to the appellant, instead of P. W. 6 conducting the investigation, it was done
by the Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash and, therefore, no conviction
could be based on such investigation, which had been made contrary to law.
The appellant also pleaded that the evidence of
P. W. 1 is that of an interested witness and that P. Ws. 2 and 3
were tools in the hands of the police and as such no reliance can
be placed on the testimony of these three witnesses.
His plea was
that the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 should have been accepted.
The High Court has expressed the view that there is a certain amount of irregularity in the investigation of the case inasmuch as the statements, reports and memos were all written by
V ed Prakash and not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
P. W. 6.
But as there is only an irregularity and as the trial has
not been vitiated, it cannot be said that the trial and other proceedings conducted against the appellant have to be set aside. The
High Court agreed with the Special Judge that the evidence of
P. Ws. l, 2, 3 and 6 clearly establishes the case of the prosecution and as such the appellant has been rightly found to be guilty
of the offences with which he was charged.
While confirming the
conviction and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment,
the High Court. however, reduced the fine to Rs. 100.
Mr. E. C. Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellant raised
two contentions: (I) the trial and conviction of the appellant are
illegal inasmuch as the investigation in this case has been conducted in violation of the provisions of Section SA of the Act,
and (2) the prosecution evidence should not have been accepted as
the w'nole case has been engineered by the enemy of the appellant
Ved Prakash, who has not appeared before the court. The second
contention of Mr. Agarwala can be straightaway disposed
of.
Both the Special Judge as well as the High Court have accepted
as true the evidence of P. Ws. l, 2, and 3 supported as it was by
the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W. 6. The
Evidence of D. W. 1 has been categorically rejected as false. D. W.
2 does not say anything about the incident and as such, his evidence is of no assistance to the appellant. No doubt the appellant
has stated when he was examined under Section 342 Cr. P. C. that
the prosecution witnesses Nos. I, 2 and 3 are under the influence
and threa.t of the police and· that they have been prompted by Ved
Prakash due to enmity to give false evidence against him. This
279
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
R
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] supp, s.c.R.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
plea has not been accepted by any of the courts.
We are satis·
fled that the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been prop~rly accepted by the courts.
This leaves us the consideration of the first contention that the
investigation has not been conducted in accordance with Section
5A of the Act. We must frankly admit that the observation made
by the Hi,gh Court that there has been a certain amount of irre·
gularity in the investigation of the case has given scope for this
argument.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant
the entire investigation in this case has been done not by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police P. W. 6, but by the Sub-Inspector of
Police V ed Prakash, who has also not appeared before the court.
The contention of the learned counsel in this regard is based upon
the fact that some of the statements, reports and memos have been
written not by P. W. 6 but by Ved Prakash. Mr. G. N. Dixit, learn·
ed counsel appearing for the Delhi Administration, has drawn our
attention to the various reports, statements and memos exhibited
111 the case to show that the investigation h~s been done not by
Ved Prakash, but by P. W. 6 and it is not violative of Sectibn SA
of the Act.
He has also placed considerable reliance on the evid·
ence of P. W. 6 in this regard to show that the entire investigation
was done by him.
There is no controversy that the case before us could not have
been investigated under Section SA of the Act by any police offi·
cer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The
only question is whether the investigation has been done by Ved
Prakash as alleged by the appellant or by P. W. 6 as stated on
behalf of the respondent.
The contention on behalf of the appellant is that some of the
statements recorded appear to be in the hand writing of Ved Pra·
kash and, therefore, the inference is that it is he who has con·
ducted the investigation.
It is true that Section SA is mandatory
and not directory and an investigation conducted in violation
thereof is illegal.
But as held by this Court in H. N. Rishbud and
Inder Singh vs. The State of Delhi (') if cognizance in fact has
been taken on a police report in breach of the mandatory provi·
sions relating to investigation, the results, which follow cannot be
set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to
have brought about a miscarriage of justice. It has been further
emphasised in the said decision that an illegality committed in the
course of an investigation does not affect the competence and juris·
diction of the Court for trial.
The same propositions have been
reiterated in Munna Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (').
(!.) (195'] l S. C.R. 1150.
(2.) [1964] 3 S. C.R. 88.
MUNI LAL v. DELHI ADMN. (Vaidialingam, J.)
From the above propositions it follows that where cognizance
of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to
termination, the invalidity of the preceding investigation will not
vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused
thereby and the accused has been prejudiced.
Assuming in favour
of the appellant, that there was an irregularity in the investiga·
tion and that Section SA of the Act was not complied with in sub·
stance, the trial by the Special Judge cannot be held to be illegal
unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice has been caused on
account of illegal investigation.
The learned counsel for the ap·
pellant has been .. unable to show us how there has been any mis·
carriage of justice in this case and how the accused has been pre·
judiced by any irregular investigation.
Admittedly the appellant
did not raise any objection before the trial commenced regarding
any illegality or irregularity committed during the stage of inves·
ligation.
On the other hand, the trial was allowed to proceed
and it came to an end.
That contention was raised only at the
stage of arguments.
In this connection we may also refer to the
decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali(').
Tb•re the objectioh was taken before the trial began before the
Special Judge, that the invstigation has been carried on in breach
of Section SA of the Act.
The matter was taken to the High
Court
and
it
directed
that
it
in
order
to
rectify
the defects
and
cure the
illegality
in the
investigation,
the Special Judge should have ordered the Deputy Superin·
tendent of Police to carry on the investigation himself while
the case remained pending in the court of the Special Judge. That
order of the High Court was challenged and this Court confirmed
it and declined to interfere on the ground that as the objection has
been taken at the earliest stage before the trial began, the direc·
tion given by the High Court was justified as that will ensure a
proper investigation being made and completed for the prosecution of the accused therein.
Therefore the ratio of the said deci·
sion cannot apply and the present case will be ·governed by the
decision in
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak A/TC).
('). But we make it clear that the above discussion has been
made by us on the assumption that there has been all irregularity
committed in the investigation in the case before us.
But as we
will presently show in the discussion to follow there is no such
irregularity or illegality in the investigation as contended on behalf
of the appellant.
We .are satisfied that the investigation in this case has been
conducted not by Ved Prakash, Sub-Inspector of Police, but by the
competent authority, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of
I. [1959] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 201
2. [1955] I S.C. R. 1150.
281
A
B
c
D
E
ll
G
H
282
B
c
D
E
II
G
H
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
[1971) SUPP. s.c.R.
Police, P. W. 6.
It is no doubt true that some of the statements
recorded during the investigation conducted by P. W. 6 are in the
hand writing of Ved Prakash.
But P. W. 6 has categorically
stated in his evidence that the entire investigation was done by him
and that any statements or reports which are in the hand writing
of Ved Prakash were written by the latter on his dictation and
under his supervision.
That P. W. 6 is the officer who conducted the investigation is also borne out by the various documentary
evidence produced in the case. Ex. PA has been given by P. W. I
to P. W. 6 and it bears the signature of the latter.
The endor~e
ment Ex. P. /\.. 1 also bears the signature of P. W. 6. It is clearly
stated therein that on receipt of the complaint Ex. PA from P. W.
!., the Deputy Superintendent of Police sent for P. Ws. 2 and 3,
two employees from the office of the Deputy Commissioner to
appraise them about the nature of the complaint given by P. W. l
and also making them witnesses for receiving the ten rupee currency note as well as handing over the same to P. W. 1 to be given
as bribe to the appellant. The detailed instructions are given by
P. W. 6 in the endorsement and to the said two witnesses. There
is a further endorsement that he as Deputy Superintendent of
Police has arranged a raiding party consisting of himself and the
persons mentioned therein ancl that they are leaving for conducting the raid along with the complainant.
There is also a further
endorsement Ex. PA/2 by P. W. 6 giving in detail the actual incident relating to the search and seizure of ten rupee currency note
from the appellant.
All these are done by P. W. 6 and after the
seizure and search, P. W. 6 sends the necessary report to the concerned police station for registering the case.
The actual seizure
memo is also prepared and signed by P. W. 6.
The various
articles seized from the appellant are also written out in the memo
prepared and signed by P. W. 6.
Therefore, all the above facts
clearly establish that the investigation was conducted by P W. 6.
Deputy Superintendent of Police, as required by Jaw and there has
been no violation of Section SA of the Act.
The High Court found irregularity in the investigation on the
basis, as pointed out earlier, that some of the statements are in
the hand writing of V ed Prakash.
We are of the view that Chi&
was a wrong approach made by the High Court. It is clear from
the evidence that P. W. 6 was in complete charge and control of
the investigation and he has never withdrawn from the same at any
stage.
He was the officer who was controlling and giving necessary directions in the course of investigation.
Though it is clearly
implicit in section SA that the investigation should be conducted
by the officer of the appropriate rank, we do not think it is absolutely necessary that every one of the steps in the investigation
bas to be done by him in person or that he cannot take the assistance of his deputies or that he is bound to go through each and
MUNI LAL v. DELI'!! ADMN. (Vaidialingam, J.)
everyone of the steps in the investigation in every case.
The
above proposition also has been laid down by this Court in H. N.
Rishbud and Inder Singh vs. The State of Bihar ('). We are referring to the above aspect to empha.sise that the mere fact that
some of the statements have been written by Ved Prakash to the
dictation of P. W. 6 will not make the investigation as one not
conducted by P. W. 6.
Therefore, under the circumstances, we
are not inclined to agree with the view of the High Court that
there has been any irregularity or illegality in the conduct of the
investigation.
We however agree with fhe conclusions arrived at by the High
Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence as well as the
sentence imposed on him.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
The appellant will surrender his bail.
V.P.S.
(1) [1955] l S. C.R. 1150.
,.
283
A
B
c