LexRAGHUBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
•
D
E
F
G
. <
H
•
•
RAGHUBIR SINGH
v,
STATE OF HARYANA
March 28, 1974
•
[H. R. KHANNA, V'. R. KRISHNA !HR AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.J
Pret:e,11ion of Corrupti~ Act. (2 of i947) S. SA-Sanction to prosecute--:-
Aurhority of. sanctio11i11g authority questioned for the first ti1ne in appeal under
Art. 136-Contention when may be allowed-Executive. magistrale laying traP-
Propriet_v-Trap witnesses, if accomplices-Non-examinfltion of a wUness and
allowing a pros•cutio11 witness to be 1'tated as ~stile-Effect of.
The appellant, an· Assistant Station MaSter, was c(>D.victcd of the offence of
criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties punishable under s. S(2) of
the Prevention. of Corruption Act. 1947, and the conviction was confirmed by
·the High Court. In appeal to this Court under Art. 136, it was contended that;
( 1) the~ prosecution was invalid for want of competent sanction;. (2) the investi-
gation was not merely illegal but caused serious prejudice to the accused; (3)
the Court should have drawn an adverse. inference aa;ainst the prosecution from
.lhe non-!'xani.ination of a key witness like the Deputy Superintendent of Police;
{ 4) ·.the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices .or quasi-accomplices should
not have been made the foundation fQr the conviction; a.lid ( 5) the Court should
not have drawn a presumption under s. 4 of the Act as the charge was under
s. 5(l)(d) rend withs . .S(2).
Dislliissing the appeal.
HELD :-(l)(a) The Divisional Officer (Senior scale) eranted the sanctioa
for prosecution in this case, and under r. 134 of the Indian Railway Establish-
ment Code, he has the delegated power to appoint and dismiss officers like the
accused, and
ther~fore, was competent to grant the sanction. [802 C-D]
(b) The construction souaht to be put On the rule reading it with r. 3(a).
chat ofily 'Divisional Personnel Officers are in executive charge_ of the staff of
Divisional Offices and are· entitled to control them and therefore, by implication
other divisional officers are excluded from the delep.tion of powers in re&ilrd
to appointments has no substance.
Rule 3(a) refers to 'E.stablishmenl matters'
which ordinarily cover routine items and not appointments and dismissals
(802 H-803 A]
( c) MOreovor the appellant should have produced his appointment order
if his case was that it was only a Divisional Personnel Officer
and
not a
Divisional OffiC!'r that appainted him. [803 BJ
(d) .This. cqnte.nti9n was nQt ~a!sed in th~ low.er cour~ nor in the High .Court.
In special circumstances the vahdny of a· sanction which· goes to· the root of
tho case may be permitted to be ·raised for the first time in·this Court but this.
is not one such. [802 · G)
Vinayak v:. Josl1ib·"v. State, A.l.R. 1968 Pun, 120 ·and Sudarshan/111 Baja;
v. S. P. Agarwaki, A.l.R. 1966 Raj. 37, referred to.
(2) The mandate of s. SA regarding investigation is merely that no police
officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent .of Police shall investigate any
of the offences specified therein. There was no inaction by the police or misuse.
of tbe executive m8.gilstracy in this case. In the present case, a trap was laid
by the Executive Magistrate, because the D.S.P. had no jurisdiction over railway
prt'miscs, and after the trap episode was completed and'. the ·bft'ence committed
information was laid before the police officer. who started. the iQV~tigation; and
he certainty was an officer of competent.rank .. While,.layi!18'. a trap by a police
Officer, may be a ·sieP ill irivestigation if a case had already: been; registered itl
the -palicC station pursuant to which the trap was set, ii Cannof be
s~ald tO: · bi
a part ·or investigation where a trap is Jaid only to find out -whether "an offence
is going to be committed. There is nothing in s. SA prevenling an Executive,
Magistrate or other public officer laying a trap to catch the allegedly conupt
official. [804 ·A-DJ
State of Bihal v. Ba~awan Singh. J1959] S,C,R .. 195 and Rishbud and lnder
Singh V. Stale of Delht, [1955] I s.c·.R: 1150 followed.
Hira Lal [1970] 3 S.C.R.. 933, rofe)'rid tg.
8-L84Sup. Cl/75
800
SllPREME COURT- REPORTS
(1974] 3 S.C.R.
(3) The non-examination of th: Deputy Superintenjent of Police· is of no
A
consequence at aII in the case. [807 B]
·
(4)(a) The speci2.I jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution cannot ,
be diluted into a second appeal on facts. [804. E-F]
. (b) To condemri roundExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.