The said report is number in the record.
On the said allegations the accused was sent up for trial before the Special Judge for offences under s. 5 1 c , read with s. 5 2 , of the Act.
The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and filed 124 exhibits.
On April 26, 1956, A.N. Khanna, the Railway Sectional Officer, Special Police Establishment, Lucknow, sent report to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, stating that he had received information through a source that the accused was in the habit of misappropriating Government money, giving 7 instances of the acts of misappropriations companymitted by him and informing him that if a proper investigation was made many more cases of misappropriation would companye to light.
Learned companynsel for the State companytended that the said Sub Inspector only made a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the truth of the information received by him and, thereafter, after obtaining the requisite permission of the Magistrate he made an investigation of the offence and, therefore, there was neither illegality number irregularity in the matter of investigation.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated January 30, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.
For the said reasons the High Court set aside the companyviction of the accused and acquitted him.
Before the Special Judge the prosecution filed a number of documents numbering up to 124 and examined 20 witnesses.
After he submitted the report, on October 8, 1956, the said Sub Inspector applied to the Additional District Magistrate Judicial , Lucknow, for permission to investigate the case.
The defence examined 3 witnesses.
Mathur, the Sub Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, as P.W. 15 says that on the receipt of the said report, the said Superintendent of .Police directed him to make an enquiry and he further says that on the basis of the information he checked the railway records, found that the information was companyrect and submitted a report accordingly.
But the full details of the enquiry were number mentioned therein.
On the receipt of the said report, the matter was entrusted to the said Mathur, a SubInspector of Police of the Special Police Establishment, Lucknow.
On October 19, 1956, the said Magistrate permitted him to investigate.
breach of trust in respect of Rs.
Thereafter, he made further investigation, seized documents, took statements from witnesses and finally submitted a charge sheet against the accused.
It was companytended before him that the investigation of the case has been made by SubInspector Mathur, who under the law was number entitled to investigate the case, as he was below the rank of Deputy Superintendent and hence the trial was vitiated.
Between October 22, 1955, and May 26, 1956, he companymitted criminal 74.
He verified the allegations companytained in the information given by Khanna, saw the relevant railway records after taking the permission of the Station Master and found the information given to be companyrect On the basis of the information companylected, he submitted a report.
The only question that was argued before us is whether the High Court was right in acquitting the accused on the ground that the investigation made by Sub Inspector Mathur before he obtained the permission of the Magistrate vitiated the entire trial.
The Special Judge companysidered the entire evidence and found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established that the accused misappropriated the amounts received by him as a public servant.
The learned Special Judge, on a careful companysideration of the entire evidence, came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused.
The State has preferred the present appeal against the said judgment of the High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The accused admitted before him that he had realized the amounts as alleged by the prosecution, but pleaded that he had numberdishonest intention, and that the deficit found was due to inadvertance and oversight.
The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated The respondent was a booking clerk at Saharanpur in the year 1955 56.
As P.W. 20 he describes the steps he had taken pursuant to the information given in the said report.
643 of 1960.
II of 1947 , hereinafter called the Act.
L. Mehta, G.C. Mathur and C.P. Lal, for the appellant.
SUBBA RAO J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow, Bench Lucknow setting aside that of the Special Judge West , Lucknow, who companyvicted the accused respondent and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment Under s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act No.
In the result he companyvicted the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid.
R. Bhasin, for the respondent.
was delivered by Subba Rao J. Mudholkar J., delivered a separate Judgment.
April 17.
The learned Special Judge held that the said Sub Inspector did number companyduct any investigation before he obtained the requisite permission from the appropriate authority and that even if he did it had number been established that the accused was prejudiced by such an enquiry.
171 of 1961.
The Judgment of Subba Rao and Dayal JJ.,
After the investigation, the accused was tried by the Special Judge.
49/1/0.
He also did number prepare any case diary in respect of the said enquiry.
