L. D. HEALY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 27-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

948 
[,. D. HEALY 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
November 21, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 s. 6(c)-Prosecution of the Rail· 
way employee for offences under s. 161 I.P.C. and s. 5(l)(d) read with 
s. 5(2)-Sanction for prosecution at first obtained from Deputy Chief 
Commercial Superintendent-Proceedings quashed at Public Prosecutor's 
request-Thereafter fresh sanction for prosecution obtained from 
Chief 
Commercial Superintendent and fresh proceedings commenced-If quash· 
ing of first proceeding amounted to acquittal and therefore conviction in· 
C 
valid. 
Section 5A(l) (d)--0/jences investigated by officer below the rank 
of Deputy Superintendent of Police by order of Additional District Magis-
trate-If investigation valid-S. 356 ss. 356(1) and 537 Criminal Proce· 
dure Code Witnesses recording evidence in presence of one Judge who 
died-Second Judge subscribing 
signatures to 
record 
of evidence-
D 
Whether such non-compliance with s. 356(1) vitiated trial or mere ir· 
regularity curable under s. 537. 
The appellant, who was a Platform Inspector employed by the North 
Eastern Railway was prosecuted for offences under s. 161 I.P.C. and 
s. 5(1)(d) read with s. 5(2) of the Pre1-ention of Corruption Act, 1947 
fdr accepting a bribe from another subordinate railway employee. The 
prosecution was commenced after obtaining the sanction of the Deputy 
Chief Commercial Superintendent but it was discovered during the trial 
lhat this officer was not competent to sanction the appellant's prosecu' 
lion. The trial Judge, at the request of the Public Prosecutor, quashed 
the proceedings. Thereafter sanction was obtained from the Chief Com· 
mercial Superintendent and in fresh proceedings for the same offences, 
the appellant was convicted and the order of conviction was confirmed 
in appeal by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant : 
(i) that in view of the provisioas of cl. (i) of r. 1704 of the Indi'an 
Railway Establishment Code, the Deputy Chief Commercial Superinten· 
dent had the power to remove the appellant from service, and was com: 
petent to grant sanction under s. 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act for his prosecution; the sanction given by the Deputy Chief Com-
mercial Superintendent for prosecuting the appellant was therefore valid 
and the order passed by the Special Judge 
quashing the 
proceeding 
amounted in law to an order of acquittal so that the appellant could not 
again be tried for the same offence; (ii) that in relation to the evidence 
of two witnesses for the prosecution, the provisions of s. 356 Cr. P.C. 
had not been complied with in that, the evidence of these witnesses was 
recorded in the presence of one trial Judge and the record of the evi-
dence had been signed by his successor in office, after the death of the 
former; and (iii) that the investigation was made by an officer who. in 
view of the provisions of s. 5A(I )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1947 had no authority to investigate the offence as he was a Police 
Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. 
E 
.F 
G 
H 
• 
.~ 
• 
' 
• 
' 
A 
B 
.. 
• 
, 
c 
D 
E 
' 
F 
G 
• 
H 
L. D. HEALY v. U.P. STATE (Shah, J.) 
949 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal, 
(i) The powers exercisable under r. 1704 (i) being subject to cl. (c) 
o~ r. 1705 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and also to the pro-
visions of Art. 311 of the Constitution in the present case the 
Deputy 
Chief Commercial Superintendent could not remove the appellant from 
service and there~ore had no power to sancdon his prosecution. The trial 
Judge who had taken cognizance of the case on a sanction given by the 
Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent was 
incompetent to try 
the 
case, and an order of acquittal passed by a court which had no jurisdic-
tion did not bar a retrial for the same offence. [952 C-E] 
(ii) There was irregularity in maintaining the recotd of the evidence 
at the trial because the evidence was recorded before one Judge and an-
other Judge subscribed his signature to the record of that evidence, and 
on that account there was non-compliance with the provisions of s. 356(1) 
Cr.P.C., but this was an irregularity curable under s. 537 Cr.P.C. and 
did not vitiate the trial. [955 B. El 
The object of the provisions in the Code relating to the recording of 
evidence is to ensure that a correct record is maintained of what is sa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.