9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offences against him by the Deputy Superintendent of the Anti-Corruption Department of the Delhi Administration. According to this ground the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act as amended prescribes special powers and procedure for investigation of offences of bribery and corruption in the departments of the Central Government and as the appellant was an employee of the Central Public Works Department, offences against him could only be investigated by the Special Police Establishment. The investigation_having not been done by the D.S.P.E., according to the appellant, his trial is vitiated. In support of this ground the appellant presented in this Court an application dated January 13, 1970 seeking permission to place on the record a letter dated February 10, 1966 purporting to have been written by the S.P. Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi and addressed to the appellant stating that the anti-corruption branch of Delhi Administration was not competent to make an enquiry into the allegations levelled against c.P.W.D. employee being a Central Government employee. This Court, while granting special leave, also permitted the appellant to urge additional grounds. We now turn to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am towards the discharge of that loan. He also produced four witnesses in support of his version. The learned Special Judge considered the prosecution evidence and held that the receipt of money having been admitted by the appellant, the onus lay on him to rebut the presumption raised by s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After considering the appellant's plea and appraising the evidence produced by him in support thereof, the learned Special Judge concluded that the burden had not been discharged. In his view, the defence witnesses were interested in the appellant and one of them, being the General Secretary of the Congress Mandal, Lajpatnagar, New Delhi and in that capacity wielding some infouence, had also tried to help the appellant. The testimony of these witnesses did not impress the Special Judge. Holding the appellant guilty he convicted him and imposed the sentence, as already noticed. On appeal the High Court agreed with the view, taken by the trial court. According to the High Court also the appellant having admitted receipt of a sum of ₹ 30/- from P.W. 1 Bakht Ram on the date of the offence, under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government of India had set up ,a police staff called the Delhi Police Establishment (War Department) under the Special Police Establishment (War Department) Ordinance No. XXII of 1943 for the purpose of investigating offences of bribery and corruption connected with the Departments of Central Government. As this Organisation proved useful it was decided to retain its police staff on permanent basis by means of legislation. Ordinance No. XXII of 1943 lapsed on September 30, 1946. In order to avoid a break in continuity, Ordinance No. XXII of 1946 was promulgated on September 25, 1946 to remain in force till March 25, 1947. The object of this Act is to retain the said special police staff as a permanent Organisation to enable it to conduct investigation in all provinces of India with their consent. Its preamble reads : "An Act to make provision for the constitution of a special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the Union territories for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences.&q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government are entrusted to it. Mr. Anthony in the course of arguments conceded that if in S. 3 instead of the word "are" the legislature had used the words "may" or "can" then the section would not prima facie convey a mandatory direction clothing the D.S.P.E. alone with the power of investigation to the exclusion of the other investigating agencies, including the regular police force. Our attention was also drawn to the resolution of the Government of India (No. 4/31/61-T dated April 1, 1963), reproduced at p. 681 of the Anti-Corruption Laws of India by P. V. Ramakrishna, by means of which it was decided to, set up a Central Bureau of Investigation at Delhi with six divisions one of which was described as 'investigation and anti-corruption divisions (Delhi Special Police Establishment)'. According to the argument the Government had designed to set up a special investigating agency for investigating cases of corruption and bribery to the exclusion of an other investigating agencies. Our attention was specifically invited to the letter (No. 593/AC Br. dated February 10, 1966) from the Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Branch, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blishment : (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Police Act, 1861, the Central Government may constitute a special police force to be called the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation in any Union territory of offences notified under section 3. (2) Subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, members of the said police establishment shall have throughout any Union territory in relation to the investigation of such offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers of that Union territory have in connection with the investigation of offences committed therein. (3) Any member of the said police establishment of or above the rank of Sub- Inspector may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise in any Union territory any of the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in the area in which he is for the time being and when so exercising such powers shall, subject to any such orders as aforesaid, be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offences specified as contemplated by s. 3 without impairing any other law empowering the regular police authorities to investigate offences. Turning now to the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), we find that this Act was enacted in March, 1947 several months after the enactment of the D.S.P.E. Act for the more effective prevention of brivery and corruption. By virtue of s. 3 of the Act an offence under s. 165A, I.P.C. was made a cognizable offence for the purposes of Cr. P.C. notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in that Code. Section 4 provides for presumptions in certain cases. Section 5 defines criminal misconduct and also provides for punishment for such offences. It further provides for punishment for habitual commission of offences under ss. 162, 163 and 165, I.P.C. and also renderers punishable attempts to commit some offences. Section 5 is expressly stated to operate in addition to, and not in derogation of other laws. Section 5A which is of importance may here be set out : "5A. Investigation into cases under this Act (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, no police officer below the rank,- (a) in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks Evidence Act, 1891." Sub-section (1) of this section, while regulating the competence of the officers both of D.S.P.E. and of the regular police force to investigate offences to the extent considered necessary, over-rides the provisions of Cr. P.C. It expressly prohibits police officers, including those of the D.S.P.E., below certain ranks, from investigating into offences, under ss. 161, 165 and 165A, I.P.C. and under s. 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, without orders of Magistrates specified therein and from effecting arrests for those offences without a warrant. The plain meaning of this sub-section appears to be that Inspectors of Police, of D.S.P.E. In all places, Assistant Commissioners of Police in the Presidency Towns of Calcutta and Madras, Superintendents of Police in the Presidency Town of Bombay, and Deputy Superintendents of Police in all places, other than Presidency Towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, are authorised to investigate into the offences mentioned therein. The word "elsewhere" in cl. (d) does not indicate, as was contended by Mr. Anthony that a Deputy Superintendent of Police is debarred from investigating offences mentioned in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retion has, therefore, to be exercised in taking up cases for investigation. In some instances it may not be possible for it to take up even those cases which are committed by Central Government servants, e.g., petty cases of theft, misappropriation, cheating. Such cases could be dealt with more easily and more expeditiously by the local police which has concurrent jurisdiction over these cases also." In para 7 it is stated that for successful investigation of cases it is most essential that a quick decision is taken about the Agency which has to investigate them. One of the Agencies mentioned therein is S.P.E. Division of the C.B.I. In para 8 it is stated that in respect of cases involving Public Servants or Public Concerns there is an administrative arrangement and understanding between the S.P.E. and the State Police about the manner in which they are to be dealt with so as to avoid difficulties and delays. This para then refers to the existing procedure and practice which, it is suggested, should continue to be valid in future. No doubt, this letter contains only administrative instructions but it clearly shows the construction placed during all these years by the adminis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64] 3 S.C.R. 742.) and more recently in Khandu Sonu Dhobi v. State of Maharashtra(Crl. A. No. 105 of 1969). The decisions of the Calcutta, Punjab and Saurashtra High Courts relied upon by Mr. Anthony deal with different points : in any event to the extent they contain any observations against the view expressed by this Court in the decision just cited those observations cannot be considered good law. This takes us to the merits of the case. Mr. Anthony referred us to the evidence of Bakht Ram, the complainant (P.W. 1) and submitted that this witness has told lies in the witness box. P.W. 4 D.C. Srivastava who was also a party to the trap and appeared as a. witness to the acceptance of the bribe was also subjected to criticism by the learned counsel. According to this criticism his evidence is equally untrustworthy. It was emphasised that the prosecution witnesses were tied down by the Investigating Agency by taking their statements under S. 164, Cr. P.C. The learned counsel submitted that resort to s. 164, Cr. P.C. must put the court on guard against implicit reliance on such evidence because resort this section suggests that the witnesses are being compelled to back to the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
