MUNNA LAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 17-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

196! 
April 17. 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
MUNNA LAL 
·v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, 
and K. C. DAS G.uPTA JJ ) 
Prwention of Corruption-Investigation by an offic.r not 
authorised by the Act-No miscarr·iage of justice-Irregularity, 
if vitiates trial· -Sanction obtained to 
prosecute four cases-
Judge split up the four cases into seven-Facts and amounts 
involved in the new thi·ee cases same-Sanction if covers "ll the 
se1Jen cases-Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947 (fiof 1947), 
ss 5, 5A.-Cod• of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), 
... 239. 
The appellant was the cashier of the Municipal Board 
of Hard war. 
He was in charge of the cash and it was his 
duty to sec that funds above Rs. 4,000/- were deposited in the 
treasury or the Impe1ial Bank. On audit it 
was found that 
money received by the Board totalling Rs. 52,144/- was not 
deposited as required by the rules. On 
complaint by the 
Chairman of the Board, a Sub.fospector of Police investigated 
the case and a case W<tS registered under s. 409 of the Indian 
Penal Code. 
Rut this case was withdrawn and the accused 
discharged on the ground that it was covered by s. 5 (2J 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Thereafter investigation 
was conducted by an officer as req dred by s. 5A of the Act. 
But this investigation consisted of this that the duly authorised 
investigating officer went through the papers of the earlier 
investigation and decided to file a 
fresh prosecution on the 
basis of the ear]ier investigation. Sanccion was obtained for 
prosecution under s. 5 (2) of the Act. 
Subsequently the four 
cases, in which the appellant and his brothN were jointly 
charged were split up into 7 cases. 
In the three new cases 
only the appellant was tried. The 
Trial Judge found the 
appellant guiltv under s. 5 (2) read with s. 5.(1) of the Act 
and sentcncPd him rn undergo imprisonment and to pay fine. 
On appeal to the High Court, it upheld the conviction but 
reduced the sentence and set aside the sentence of fine. 
The 
appellant appealed to this Court with special leave. 
, 
The following points were urg<d 
in the appeal before 
this Court. 
Firstly, it was urged that the investigation W'!S 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME· COURT, REPORTS,. 
89 
irregular ind not in., accordance with s. 5A of the Act in as 
much as the investigation 'was not conducted by a' 'person 
authorised by that section. Secondly, it wa• contended that 
sanction was ; obtained 
only 
for 
the 
first ; four 
cases 
and no sanction was obtained for the 'three new cases (after 
splitting up the four) out oC which the present appeals have 
arisen.· It was·· further contended that the sanction was not 
with respect to s. 5 (1) (c) of the Act 
though it was under s. 
5 (2) of the Act and therefore it was 
insuffiicient to confer 
jurisdiction on the Special Judge to, · try · the appellant under 
s. 5 (1) (c) read with s. 5 (2) ·of the Act. 
· 
· 
· 
Iltld that s. 5A i.s mandatory · and not directory and 
an investigation conducted 
in violation 
thereof is illegal. -
But this illegality will not vitiate . the results. of the trial 
unle-ss it is shown that. it has 
bro:.ight about a miscarriage ' 
of justice; neither does it affect the competence or jurisdiction-
of the court to try the case. 
· 
' 
· 
- . · · 
·. '.In the present appeals 'it is nof shown that there. bas 
been miscarriage of justice as a result of the illegal inveSiigatiOn·. 
H. N. Rishbud & lnder Singh v. State oiDelhi, £1955] 
1 S.C.R. 1150 followed. 
· 
S•ate of Madhy.z Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali [1959]Supp. 2 
S.C.R. 201 distinguished, 
· 
The mer~ fact that in view_ of the provisio~s of s. 239 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Special Judge 
thought it necessary to separate the trial of the appellant 
-with respect to certain items for which there was sanction would 
not mean that these cases had no sanction behind it. · The 
sanction pf the original four cases wou Id cover thes_e three casCs · 
also. 
-
-
· 
_ 
The. aiieg~~fons mJ.de ·in the sanction-_ show ~h~t th~ 
sanctioning authority had s.·5 (1) (c) in mind because the san· 
ction speaks of misappropfiation and embezzlement of the money 
of the BOard and misappropriation and· embezzlement. is only 
to be found ins. 5 (I) (c). As the words of the sanction stand. 
they would cover_ a case of mi!'iappropriation 
or conversion to 
. his own case by the ·appellant himself . or by alJowing others 
to do so. The sanc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.