TMI Blog1968 (10) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was registered against Shambu Pada Banerji. In connection with the investigation of that case the house of the appellant which was at a distance of 300 yards from Sahebganj Railway station was searched on January 19, 1958 at about 3. p.m. by P.W. 56 along with other police Officers, Md. Junaid (P.W. 48) and Dharrnadeo Singh (P.W. 57 ). Various articles were recovered from the house of the appellant and a search list (Ex. 5/17) was prepared. A charge sheet was submitted in G.R.P. Case No. 12 (1)58 against the appellant and Shambu Pada Banerji. Both of them were tried and convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka by a judgment dated June 12, 1961. The appellant flied Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 1961 against his conviction under s. 474/466 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated September 14, 1962 on the ground that there was no proof that the appellant was in conscious possession of the incriminating articles. During the course of the investigation of G.R.P. Case No. 12 (1)58, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 56) found a sum of ₹ 51,000 standing to the credit of the appellant in the Eastern Railway Employees' Co-opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken in appeal to the High Court which by its judgment dated September 14, 1965 set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under s. 411, Indian Penal Code and confirmed the conviction of the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Act. The High Court, however, reduced the sentence of 6 years simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 40,000 to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 20,000. Section 5 of the Act, as it stood before its amendment by Act 40 of 1964, read as follows: 5.(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty-- (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration ) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, or (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person,any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. It was in the first place contended on behalf of the appellant that s. 5 (3) of the Act was repealed by Parliament while the appeal was pending in, the High Court and the presumption enacted in s. 5 (3 ) of the Act was not available to the prosecuting authorities after the repeal of the sub-section on December 18, 1964. The argument was stressed. that it was not open to the High Court to invoke the presumption contained in s. 5( 3 ) of the Act in considering the case against the appellant. It was also said that the presumption contained in s. 5(3) of the Act was a rule of procedural law and not a rule of substantive law and alterations in the form of procedure are always. retrospective in character unless there is some good reason or other why they should not be. It was therefore submitted that the judgment of the High Court was defective in law as it applied to the present case the presumption contained in s. 5(3) of the Act even after its repeal. We are unable to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant as correct. It is true that as a general rule alterations in the, form of proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses .completed before the statute was passed. That is the case here. It is therefore clear that as a general rule the amended law relating to procedure operates retrospectively. But there is another equally important principle, viz. that a statute should not be, so construed as to create new disabilities or obligations or impose new duties in respect of transactions which were complete at the time the amending Act came into force--(See In re a Debtor(1) and In re Vernazza(3).The same principle is embodied in s. 6 of the General Clauses Act which is to the following effect: 6. Effect of repeal. 'Where this Act or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or here- after to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-- (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss Magistrate upon which the Deputy Superintendent of Police made an endorsement (Ex.1/1) suggesting that Inspector Haldhar may be empowered to investigate the case. The order of the Magistrate is Ex.1/2 and is dated February 27, 1959.The order states: Inspector Sri M.S. Haldhar is' allowed to do it . The evidence of P.W. 11 is that he was posted at Sahebganj as a Magistrate from 1956 and used to do the work of the Sub-divisional Officer also in his absence. He passed the order (Ex. 1/2) authorising M.S. Haldhar to investigate the case because the Deputy Superintendent of Police used to remain busy with his work and the present case needed a whole-time investigation. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was nothing in the endorsement of the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he was busy and therefore the inquiry should be entrusted to Sri Haldhar. But the High Court has observed that P.W. 1 was a Magistrate working at Sahibganj for a period of two years prior to the passing to the order in question and he must have known that the Deputy Superintendent of Police could not devote his whole-time to the investigation of the case and therefore the Inspector of Poli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate to your known sources of income and that you cannot satisfactorily account the possession of the same and that you thereby committed the offenses of criminal misconduct, under clauses (a) to (b) of s. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), punishable under Sec. 5(2) of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court. It was argued that the charge did not disclose the amounts the appellant took as bribes and the persons from whom he had taken such bribes and the appellant had therefore no opportunity to prove his innocence. But, in our view, this circumstance does not invalidate the charge, though it may be a ground for asking for better particulars. The charge, as flamed, clearly stated. that the appellant accepted gratification other than legal remuneration and obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal. means. The charge, no doubt, should have contained better particulars so as to enable the appellant to prove his case. But the appellant never complained in the trial court or the High Court that the charge did not contain the necessary particulars. The record on the other hand disclosed that the appellant understood the case against h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
