LexA.C. SHARMA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I
. ~
477
A.·C. SHARMA
v.
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
February .5, 1973
[A. ALAGIRISWAM~, I. D. ~UA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
11 . Special Pobce Estc.bbsllment Act 25
of
1946--Notification
B
De "3 of Act, being notification No. 7 /5155-A.V.D. dated Nol'em-
unde(, 5i966 conferring jurisdiction Oil Delhi Special
Police
Establislz-
btr 'to inl';stigate inter alia offences under 161, 165 1B5A Indian Penal
mtdl!t nd o{}ences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 19~7-
Co e 0
A · C
t'
D
I .
·
J . d·ction o/ the
1111- orrup zon
epartment o
De/lu Administration
~ft~~lt~r completely disp!aced-Sclte'!u;s o~ Ac_r 25 of 19~6 and Act 2
C of 1947-Pasuast~a v~lue f!l ~dmrrllstrllltve tnsfru~llons m interpreting
sroJure-Defect
Ill
znve.rllgatton.
effect
of-!~ ord
'elsewhere' ' in
r.SA(l)(d) of Act 2 of 1947, meaning of.
The appellant was the dealing clerk in the labour office Delhi
in
April 1965. He v.-as tried and convicted by the Special Judge
D~!lhi
under s. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruptio.ll Act and section 161 of the
Indian Penal Code. His appeal to the High Court of Delhi was dis-
D mis>ed by the Single Judge.
In appeal by sp.ccial leave to this Cotrrt
it was contended that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 19-U>,
;u amended, prescribes spcciul powers and procedure for inn:stigation
of ofT~nccs of bribery and co'rruptio.r; and as the appellant was an em-
ploree of the Central Puhlic Work Department offences
against
him
rould only he inv~tigat~d by the Special Police
Establishment. His
P~-ution based on investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of the
[ Anu-corruptio.r, Department of the Delhi Administration was therefore,
acwrding to the appell:wt, illegal. This contention, raised
for
the
~~~ tunc in this Court. was allowed to be urged in view of the di!ci-
SIO!J of this court in Allllluwalia's case.
•
! F
l~ELD : (i) Statement of object~ and reasons for
introducing . a
!ill 1n the leghlature is not admissibl<!
;1~ a;ll uiJ to the C?nstrucllon
. the statute as enacted· far )es<; can it control the meanmg of the
~ctll',,.lwords used in the Act: Jt can only be referred to for the limited
~~tse of ascertaining the circumstances which actuateJ the spons..'t
(
1
B11J to introduce H nnd the purpose for doin!! so. [4840-H}
to fii) The preamble ~f n statute, which is ofte-n de~crib~d ns a key
amhile. undmtanding ~f it, may Jcgitimatc.ly be consult~J t~. solve nn
llh. S0'1Y or to a~rtam nnd fix the mcamng of word~ 10 thctr cookxt
',·
~,)c othcrwhe hc:ir more mc·min"~ than one. It mav alford useful
''
.,Ita nee ll t
•
"
B
if th • nactruent
i• ,1··
s o Wh;1t the ~tatutc inknJs to reach.
ut
':' e '
.
Wt ·lc<~r ~a!J unambiguous in itself th~n fhl pn:mbl<! can yary Its mean mg.
u e con~t ·
·
· J th • presnmp-
lin0 th·
nJJn~:t a statute one has aho to hear 10 mm
" .
1 a·
tio~ in ~t thi! .le~i\lature dol'~ m)t inhmd to m:1kc nnv sut>st:t!l1'_31 a te~e
1fllmcui·';e ext~tlng law hcvond v.h:lt it expresslv !!ed11re$ or be)ond
,
"e \Cope unJ object of the statute. [485:\-Bl
f
(iii) Th
.
hi' h ent Act does
11
!ll)f fither e Kheme or the Ddhi Special ~olt:e Esta. '!t mIre
r~!!lllar
lklli~ aulh e~~re~sly or by necr<;~:!'rv imnl•cntlon
(hv;_tcnce to invP.~ti·
~!e ;1110 C>ffrthet of their iurisdiction. rc-wer nod com A~
i!POI"rnl r11te
II Would ro '-'~ces under nnv other comne•en• Ia~. fvPT/ exclude "• a
llli<tter of ~~~litre clear anti e1Ct'lfe~• 1:'""~ 1" 1!"" 10 e, P.C ~!fence~ m~r>tinncd
aw the JX>Wer of investtgat1on for t ~£
,,
~~;
i \:
.,. ...
.
1
;·,
!. ..
?
•'
' ft .
L
'·
.,
r .
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973) 3 S.C.R.
in the notification dated ·November 6, 1956, under s. 3 of
the
Act,
from the jurisdiction and competence of-the regular police authorities
conferred on them by the Cr. P.C. and other laws and to
vest
this
power exclusively in the D. S. P. E.
The D. S. P ~E. Act seems to be
only pern;lissive or empowering, intended merely to enable the D.S.P.E.
also to investigate into the offences specified as -contemplated by sec-
tion 3 without impairing any other law empowering police authorities
to 'investigate offences. · [486B-F]
(iv) The plain meaning of sub-section (1) of _'S. 5A of the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1947 appears to be that I.nspectors
of Police of
D. S. P. E. in all places, Assistant Commissioners of Police
i;n
t~e
Presidency towns of Calcutta and Madras, SuperintendExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.