MUBARAKALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that on 11-1-1957, one Mr. Bhalla made a report that when he went to the Railway Station Gola-Ka-Mandir to enquire whether empty boxes could be dispatched from Gola-Ka-Mandir Station to delhi, he found that the Station Master was at first unwilling to book them. But later on, he agreed to book empty boxes, provided Mr. Bhalla paid As, 10 per box by way of gratification. Mr. Bhalla did not agree to it. The following day when Mr. Bhalla when to the Station again, he did not find the Station Master on duty. In his place the A. S. M. was working. On being told what his purpose was, the A. S. M. climbed down to a lower figure and asked Mr. Bhalla to give him only As. 8 per box. Mr. Bhalla did not agree to this proposal also and made a report giving all these facts. Sub-Inspector Nannoram, on receiving the report laid a trap and went to the station of Gola-Ka-Mandir from where in his presence Mr. Bhalla dispatched certain boxes. The A. S. M. on duty handed him over the Railway Receipt, and, asked Mr. Bhalla to pay him ten rupees as settled before. Mr. Bhalla thereupon took out from his pocket eight rupee-notes, and, paid the amount to the Assistant station Master. After this, Sub-Inspector Nanooram appeared on the scene, and, asked the A. S. M. to produce the amount which he had accepted as bribe from Mr. Bhalla. The A. S. M. handed over the money to Sub-Inspector Nanooram. A memo' of recovery was made then and there, and the Sub-Inspector also obtained the railway receipt from Mr. Bhalla. Thus the investigation began in this case from 111-1955.

(2.) ACCORDING to Section 5-A (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no one below the rank of Deputy Superintendent Police is competent to investigate an offence punishable under section 161 I. P. C. unless an order from a Magistrate is obtained. But in the present case ten days after the investigation had started, sub-Inspector Nanooram, presented an application to the City Magistrate Lashkar, saying that he had been deputed to investigate the case and that under Section 5a (c), he sought permission for necessary investigation. The Magistrate without giving a moment's thought to this application wrote on it "permission given". After that, the case was further investigated and the Challan was put up eventually before the Special Judge on 3-10-55. This case did not however proceed till the 5th June, 1957. As soon as the trial commenced, on 22-7-57 the accused by his application raised preliminary objections that the investigation in the case was: made by an unauthorised person, that the order given by the Magistrate to investigate the case was perfunctory in its nature, that the Magistrate did not apply his mind at the time of giving permission, and, that in consequence the court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The trial Court disallowed all these objections. It is against this order that the accused has filed this revision.

(3.) AFTER hearing arguments I think that there are three questions which must be considered in this case :-