H N RISHBUD Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals by Special leave against the orders of the Punjab High Court made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, reversing the orders of the Special Judge, Delhi, quashing certain criminal proceedings pending before himself against these appellants for alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. The Special Judge quashed the proceedings on the ground that the investigations on the basis of which the appellants were being prosecuted were in contravention of the provisions of subsection (4) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and hence illegal. In appeal No. 95 of 1954 the appellants are two persons by name H.N. Risbud and Indar Singh. In Appeals Nos. 96 and 97 of 1954 H.N. Risbud above mentioned is the sole appellant. These appeals raise a common question of law and are dealt with together.

(2.) Under section 5(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, a police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall not investigate any offence punishable under sub-section (2) of section 5 without the order of a Magistrate of the First Class. The first information reports in these cases were laid in April and June, 1949, but permission of the Magistrate, for investigation as against the public servants concerned, by a police officer of a rank lower than a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was given in March and April, 1951. The charge-sheets in all these cases were filed by such officers in August and November, 1951, i.e. subsequent to the date on which permission as above was given. But admittedly the investigation was entirely or mostly completed in between the dates when the first information was laid and the permission to investigate by an officer of a lower rank was accorded.

(3.) To appreciate the argument it is necessary to notice the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 3 of the Act provides that offences punishable under section 161 or 165 I. P. C. shall be deemed to be cognizable offences. Section 4 enacts a special rule of evidence against persons accused of offences under section 161 or 165 I. P. C., throwing the burden of proof on the accused. Broadly stated, this section provides that if it is proved against an accused that he has accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed against him that this was so accepted or obtained as a motive or reward, such as is mentioned in section 161, I. P. C.