MUNI LAL versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 30-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

276 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MUNI LAL 
v. 
DELm ADMINISTRATION 
March 30, 1971. 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. ~y. JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), s. SA-If officer conducting 
investigation should take every step hinzself-Objection not taken 
during 
trial- Effect of irregularity or illegality-If conviction illegal. 
The appellant was charged with the offences under s. S(2) read with 
s. S(l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and s. 161, I.P.C. The 
investigation was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police but some 
of the statements, reports and memoranda were written, not by the Dy. 
Superintendent of Police, but by the Sub-Inspector. The appellant did not 
raise any objection before or during the trial that an illegality or irreau.}a· 
rity was committed during investigation. At the stage of argument, it f'a~ 
contended that there was a violation of s. S(A). The appellant was con· 
victed and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court. In appeol 
to this Court, on the questions: (I) whether there was violation of s. 5(A1 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and (2) whether such violation render· 
ed the trial and conviction of the appellant illegal, 
HELD: (I) The Dy. Superintendent of Police gave evidence that the 
entire investigation was done by him and that the statements and reports 
which were in the hand-writing of the Sub-Inspector were written by tho 
latter on his dictation and under his supervision. 
The evidence in the 
case also :stablished that the Dy. Superintendent of Police was in com· 
plete charge of the investigation giving necessary directions and never with-
drew from the case at any stage. Though s. SA is mandatory that tho 
investigation should be conducted by the officer of the appropriate rank 
it is not necessary that every one of the steps in the investigation should 
be done by him in person or that he could not take the assistance of his 
deputies or that he was bound to go through each one of the steps ~imself. 
Therefore, there was no irregularity or illegality in the conduct of the 
investigation. [280F-G ; 282A-B, F-H; 283B] 
(2) Where no objection was raised before trial commenced regardin11 
any illegality or irregularity committed durinll investigation and where the 
cognizance of case in fact had been taken and the case had proceeded to 
termination the invalidity of the preceeding investigation would not vitiate 
the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby and the ac-
cused has been prejudiced. [281A·B, C·D, G] 
11. N. Rishbud and lndtr Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1150 
and Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 88, followed. 
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak A.Ii, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 201, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 23 
crf 1968. 
MUNI LAL'· DELHI ADMN. (Vaidialingam, J.) 
277 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
A 
September 18, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 26-D of 1966. 
E. C. Agarwal, for the appellant. 
G. N. Dikshit and .R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Valdi•linpm, J.-This a.ppeal. by special, leave, is directed 
against the judgment and order dated September 18, 1967 of the 
Delhi High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for 
offences under Sections 5(2) read with Section (5) (!) (d) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 
the Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The High 
Court also confirmed the sentence of one year's rigorous imprison-
ment. 
In addition to this the Special Judge had imposed a tine 
of Rs. 500; but the High Court reduced the fine to Rs. 100. This 
was the only modification effected by the High Court with regard 
to the sentence. 
The case foe the prosecution was as follows : 
The appel· 
lant was employed in August, 1965 as Head Constable attached 
to Hauz Qazi Police Station, Delhi. 
One Som Nath used to park 
his rehri in the chowk of Hauz Qazi and sell Kulchey and Chho-
/ey. 
Soon Nath had been plying this trade for about 8 or 10 
years without payment of the necessary tax to the Municipal Cor-
poration and without taking any licence. The appellant used to 
harass and threaten Som Nath that unless he paid bribe to him, 
l;ie will be prosecuted. In particular on August 25, 1965 the 
appellant demanded from Som Nath as bribe a sum of Rs. 20 
per mo11th for not harassing 

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