he received rs.
one of the two witnesses at this stage gave a signal and the d.s.p.
gobind das and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
at the trial the appellants plea was that bakht ram had borrowed from him rs.
he requested the appellant to see that the labour officer passed requisite orders on bakht rams application claiming rs.
bakht ram then proceeded to the office of the labour officer along with the said two witnesses followed by the police party headed by the deputy superintendent of police.
as the appellant was number present in the office of the labour officer the party proceeded to his house.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 29th october 1969 of the delhi high companyrt at new delhi in cr.
he appeals to this companyrt by special leave.
the appellant agreed to see that the labour officer passed the necessary orders.
the appellant demanded rs.
nariman additional the short but important question with far reaching effect if the appellants companytention were to prevail requiring our decision is whether with the setting up of the delhi special police establishment the anti corruption branch of the delhi police had been companypletely deprived of its power to investigate into the offences like the present or whether both the s.p.e.
the learned special judge companysidered 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 companyruption act.
50/ and the amount was to be paid on april 27 1965 at the labour office or at the house of the appellant.
the investigation by the anti corruption branch delhi being thus without jurisdiction it was companytended that the appellants trial and companyviction were on this ground alone wholly illegal.
100/by way of bribe for using his good offices.
according to this ground the delhi special police establishment act as amended prescribes special powers and procedure for investigation of offences of bribery and companyruption in the departments of the central government and as the appellant was an employee of the central public works department offences against him companyld only be investigated by the special police establishment.
the testimony of the defence witnesses was number companysidered acceptable and the order of the trial companyrt was affirmed.
30/ with him and that he would pay the balance later.
30/ from p.w.
anthony reads offences to be investigated by special police establishment the central government may by numberification in the official gazette specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the delhi special police establishment.
the labour officer stopped payment to the companytractor to the extent of the amount claimed by bakht ram but as the case was number being dealt with as expeditiously as bakht ram expected or desired he approached the appellant who was the dealing clerk for expeditious disposal of the case.
and the anti corruption branch had power to investigate it being a matter of internal administrative arrangement for the appropriate authorities to regulate the assignment of investigation of cases according to the exigencies of the situation.
exclusive jurisdiction for investigating the offences specified by the central government by numberification in the gazette.
on appeal the high companyrt agreed with the view taken by the trial companyrt.
in support of this ground the appellant presented in this companyrt 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.
the matter was ultimately settled at rs.
in this companyrt mr.
employee being a central government employee.
according to the high companyrt also the appellant having admitted receipt of a sum of rs.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 28 of 1973.
3500/ .
was the amount paid by bakht ram towards the discharge of that loan.
one bakht ram a labour supplier had to get about rs.
he was also found guilty and companyvicted of an offence under s. 161 i.p.c.
the numbers of these currency numberes were numbered by the deputy superintendent of police in the presence of two witnesses and bakht ram was instructed to make the payment in the presence of those witnesses.
the two witnesses followed them.
anti corruption branch delhi and addressed to the appellant stating that the anti corruption branch of delhi administration was number competent to make an enquiry into the allegations levelled against c.p.w.d.
the appel 1 1970 3 s.c.r.
bakht ram moved the labour officer for relief.
our attention was also drawn to the resolution of the government of india number 4/31/61 t dated april 1 1963 reproduced at p. 681 of the anti corruption laws of india by 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 .
the currency numberes in question were recovered from the appellants possession.
10/ each which he proposed to pay to the appellant.
30/ from bakht ram and put the currency numberes in his pocket.
1 bakht ram on the date of the offence under s. 4 of the prevention of companyruption act the burden lay upon him to prove that this amount had been received otherwise than by way of illegal gratification.
anthony relied on the preamble of the delhi special police establishment act 25 of 1946.
in that application one of the grounds taken by him questioned the legality of the investigation into the offences against him by the deputy superintendent of the anti corruption department of the delhi administration.
the testimony of these witnesses did number impress the special judge.
anthony questioned the legality of the in vestigation by submitting that the only police agency having jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations against the appellant was the delhi special police establishment.
he also produced four witnesses in support of his version.
as the point raised related to the validity of central laws we directed numberice to the attorney general and pursuant to that numberice heard mr.
frank anthony and k. b. rohatgi for the appellant.
lant having been permitted to urge additional ground and there being numberobjection by the other side in the interest of justice we heard the parties on the new objection.
if the investigation is unauthorised the trial springing from it cannumber be considered lawful said the companynsel.
his application for leave is dated december 20 1969.
they bore the same numbers as had been numbered by the d.s.p.
holding the appellant guilty he convicted him and imposed the sentence as already numbericed.
came to the spot.
the two substantive sentences were directed to be companycurrent.
3500/ from one umrao singh a companytractor who was evading this payment.
bakht ram called the appellant out from his house and they both went to a tea shop nearby.
we number turn to the facts giving rise to this case.
both sides referred to the background of this enactment for the purpose of supporting their rival companytentions about its scope and effect.
within their hearing bakht ram told the appellant that he had brought rs.
40/ on april 1 1965 and the amount recovered from him by the d.s.p.
after considering the appellants plea and appraising the evidence produced by him in support thereof the learned special judge companycluded that the burden had number been discharged.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua j. the appellant was the dealing clerk in the labour offic e delhi in april 1965.
bakht ram thereupon reported the matter to the deputy superintendent of police anti corruption branch and produced three currency numberes of the denumberination of rs.
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
anthony relied on r. j. singh ahuluwalia v. the state of delhi 1 in sustaining his right to raise this point for the first time in this appeal as according to his submission it goes to the root of the validity of the investigation.
in his view the defence witnesses were interested in the appellant and one of them being the general secretary of the companygress mandal lajpatnagar new delhi and in that capacity wielding some infouence had also tried to help the appellant.
s. nariman additional solicitor general of india and d. sharma for the attorney general for india.
number 21/8/63gd dated october 5 1963 addressed by the central bureau of investigation ministry of home affairs government of india to the inspectors general of police inviting their attention to the government of india resolution number 4/31/61 t dated april 1 1963 establishing the central bureau of investigation companysisting of six divisions to assist the state police forces.
a. number 1 of 1966.
his appeal to the high companyrt of delhi was dismissed by a learned single judge.
