DEBI PRASANNA GHOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Reference to a Full Bench, we find It necessary to formulate the Questions arising out of the facts ourselves, inasmuch as they have not been formulated in the Order of Reference. The questions which do arise may be stated in the following form: (1) Whether when a Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police investigates an offence under Section 120 B, read with Section 420, Penal Code and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 without complying with the provisions of Section 5(4) (now Section 5A) of the latter Act, such failure would vitiate the entire proceedings in Court based on the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer; And

(2.) Was the case of 'Sudhir Kumar v. The State', in so far as it decided that the entire proceedings in Court would be vitiated in such circumstances, rightly decided? 2. Since the reference was made, the identical question has been decided by the Supreme-Court and we are therefore relieved of the necessity of trying to find an answer to the question for ourselves. In view of the decision of their Lordships in the case of 'H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi', the answer to the first question must be in the negative.

(3.) The second question is consequential The answer to that question must, therefore, be also in the negative.