H. N. RISHBUD AND INDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1150 · Decided: 14-12-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE, B. JAGANNADHADAS
Cited by 22 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
Guhinath 
v . 
. Kamalabai 
¥ahajiin" c .. J. 
1954 
December 14 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
·For the reasons given above, this appeal 
fails and 
jg dismissed, but in the 
circumstances 
of the case · we 
will make no order as to costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
H. N. RISHBUD AND INDER SINGH 
tJ. 
THE STATE OF DELHI 
(And connected Appeals) 
[MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN. BosE and JAGANNADHAMS JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), s. 5(4) .and pro-
tJiso to s. 3-Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act, 1952 
(LIX of 1952), s 5-A-Whether mandatory or directory-Cognizance 
taken on a police report vitiated by a breach of mandatory provisions 
.,-Legal effect thereof. 
Held, that s. 5(4) and proviso to s. 3 of the Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947) and the corresponding s. 5-A of the 
Prevention of Corruption (Second 
Amendment) Act, 1952 (LIX of 
1952) are mandatory and 
not directory and that an investigation 
Conducteq in violation thereof is illegal. 
If cognizance is in fact taken on a police report in breach of a 
mandatory provision relating to investigation, the resul~ which fol· 
low cannot be 
set aside 
unless the illegality in 
the investigation 
c.an be sh.own to have brought about a iniscarriage of justice. 
It is well-settled · that an· illegality committed in the course of 
an investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction 
of the court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact 
been taken and the case has proceeded to termination the invalidity 
of the preceding 
investigation does 
not vitiate the 
result unless 
miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. 
When 
any breach of 
thi! 
mandatory provisions relating to 
irivestigation is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage 
of the trial the Court will have to consider the nature and _extent of 
the violation and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as 
thay be called for, wholly 
or partly, and by such officer as it con· 
s~ders appropriate with reference to the requirements of s. -5-A of the 
Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act, 1952. 
·. Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner ( [ 1861) 30 L.J. Ch. 379), 
Prabhu v. Emperor (A.LR. 1944 P.C. 73) and Lumbhardar Zutshi 
v. The King (A.1.R. 1950 P.C. 26), referred to. 
. CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 95 to 97 and 106 of 1954. 
-
• 
.. 
' .,, 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1151 
Appeal by Special Leave from the 
Judgment and 
Order dated the 24th August 1953 of the 
High 
Court 
of Judicature for the 
State of 
Punjab (Circuit Bench, 
Delhi) in 
Criminal 
Revision Nos. 109-D, 122-D and 
123-D of 1953 arising out of the Judgment and Order 
dated the 25th May 1953 of the Court of Special Judge, 
Delhi, in 
Corruption Case No. 14 of 1954; from the 
Judgment and Order dated the 27th August 1954 of 
the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab 
(Circuit Bench, Delhi) in Criminal Miscellaneous N 6. 
131-D of 1954 . 
H. /. Umrigar and Rajinder Narain, for 
appellant 
No. 1. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General 
of India (G. N. 
Joshi, P. A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, 
with him), for 
the respondent. 
1954. December 
14. 
The 
Judgment 
of 
the 
Court was delivered by 
JAGANNADHADAS 
J.-These are 
appeals 
by special 
leave against 
the 
orders of the 
Punjab 
High Court 
made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, 
reversing 
the orders of the 
Special 
Judge, Delhi, quashing 
cer-
tain criminal 
proceedings · pending 
before 
himself 
against these appellants for alleged offences 
under the 
Penal 
Code and the 
Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 
.1947. The Special 
Judge quashed the 
proceedings on 
the ground that the investigations 
on 
the 
basis 
of 
. which the appellants 
were being prosecuted 
were 
m 
contravention of the provisions of sub-section ( 4) of sec-
tion 5 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and 
hence illegal. In Appeal No. 95 of 1954 the appellants 
are two persons by name H. N. Risbud and Indar Singh. 
In Appeals No. 96 and 97 of 1954 H. N. Risbud above 
mentioned is the sole appellant. These appeals raise 
a common question of law and are dealt with together. 
The appellant Risbud was the Assistant Development 
Officer (Steel) in the office of the Directorate-General, 
Ministry of 
Industry · and 
Supply, 
Government of 
India and the appellant 
Indar Singh was the 
Assistant 
Project Section Officc;r (Steel) in the office of the Direc~ 
·1954
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.