P. SIRAJUDDIN ETC. versus STATE OF MADRAS ETC.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 09-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
931 
P. SIRAJUDDIN ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS ETC. 
March 9, 1970 
(J. M. SHELAT AND G. K, MITTER, JJ.J 
Cade of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), Chapter XI-Investiga-
tion by Vigilance Department-Duty to follow procedure in Code-Pre-
vention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), s. 5(1) (b)-Scope of. 
On March- 1, 1964, the Chief Minister of the State received a petition 
containing allegations of corruption against the appellant (a Superintend-
ing Engineer) and the Chief Minister asked the Director of Vigilance and 
Anti-Corruption to make enquiries. 
On March 10, 1964, the Director 
submitted a note containing serious aspersions on the appe1lant and 'the 
Chief Minister ordered further investigation. 
The Director of Vigilance 
registered an inquiry on 15th April, 1964, and a Deputy Sugerintendent 
of Police of the Vigilance Department was asked to make the inquiry. 
The Deputy Superintendent of Police made a thorough 
and 
searching 
inquiry. 
He examined a large number of persons including 18 public 
servants and even enquired into and took down statements of persons who 
were supposed to have provided the appellant with articles of food worth 
trifling sums of money, a long time- before. 
He recorded self incriminat· 
ing statements of -a number of persons and secured their signatures thereto. 
With respect to two officers, who were lhe subordinates of the appellant, 
he even gave certificates of immunity from any action that might be taken 
against them for the part played by them in aiding the appellant. On June 
27, 1964, he lodged a first information report, with respect to offences 
under ss. 161 and 165 J.P.C., and s. 5(1) (a) and (d) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1947. 
He investigated into the offences theniafter, 
and filed the charge sheet before the Special Judge. 
The appellant made an application for 
discharge 
under 
s. 251-A, 
Cr.P.C., on the g!rounds of discrimination between him and other officers 
who were given palrdon and, gross irregularities in the investigation. The 
Special Judge held. that though there was no basis 
for 
charging the 
appellant under s. 165, J.P.C., or under s. 5(2). read withs. 5(!)(b). of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act. a charge could be framed against him 
under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1) (d). The appellant thereafter moved the 
High Court, 
The High Court held : (I) that the investigation started on 15th Aplril 
1964 when the Director of Vigilance registered an inquiry (2) that the 
taking of signed and self-incriminating statements from various \vitnesses 
was in violation of ss. 161 to 164 Cr.P.C.; (3) that the Special Judgo 
erred in directing the framing of the charge 
without 
excluding 
tho~e 
statements from. ccinside\'ation; and (4) that the Special Judge should take 
up the matter once again after excluding from· consideration those state-
ments. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (I) Though technicallv investigation did not commence on 
J5th April 1964 but started onlv after the formal first information report 
was lodged on June 27, 1964, there were serious irregularities during the 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970) 3 S.C.R. 
inquiry and investigation. which caused prejudice to the appellant. The 
A 
directions given by the High Court were, however, sufficient in the circums-
tances of the case. (945 DJ 
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti.Corruption be'came a police 
station for the purposes ol the Criminal Procedure Code only by a notifi-
cation dated 25th May 1964. 
Therefore, the inquiry before that date 
was not an investigation under Ch. XIV of the Code, but there was no 
warrant for the Vigilance Department, which was in the charge of a senior 
B 
police officer, to disregard the provisions of ss. 162 and 163 of the Code. 
Under s.161(3) of the Code a police officer is empowered to reduce into 
writing any statement made to him in the course of investigation 
and 
s. 162(1) lays down that such a statement is not to be signed by the 
maker thereof. Section 163 (I) lays an embargo on the investigating 
authority using any inducement, threat or promise to the, maker. 
The 
reason for these provisions is to secure a fair 
investigation 
into 
the 
!acts and circumstances. of the cas eand to see th"t an O" 
'alous police 
C 
officer may not misuse his position by getting a statement signed by the 
maker in order to pin him down to it. 
Also, immunity from prosecution 
and the grant of a pardon were not in the discretion

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