S.N. BOSE versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 26-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
c 
• 
D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
·-,, , '/ --
S. N. BOSE 
v. ·'\ 
STATE OF BIHAR 
· ', 
March 26, 1968 · 
' 
.,;, 
[G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Pre»ention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), ss. 4(1), SA ond 6(1) 
(c)-Investigation by Inspector of Police after obtaining permission from 
First Class Afagistrate _to lay trap--Pernzission if sufficient for investiga-
Iion-Rea.<>ons if to be ;ecOrded hy Alagistrate lvhile grcnting pernzission-
Presumption under s. 4---Scope of and how rebutted-Sanction to prose-
cute-Granted by Chief Medical Officer of Rciln·ay hospital a<; 'head 
of <lepartment-Accused a non-gazetted officer having prh·ileges 
of 
a-· 
ga:etted officer-~uffeciencyr 
.:-
The appellant wits an assistant medical offiCCr· in a_ railway hospital at 
Gaya. 
Though he had certain privileges ordinarily available to gazetted 
officers he was only a non-gazetted Class III officer. He was convicted 
for effcnC'es under s. 161 I.P.C. and s. 5(2) read \\ith s. S(l)(d) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The complaint that be had received 
Hiegal gratification, \vas investigated into by an Inspector of'. Police. The 
Inspector obtained permission from a First Class l\Iagistrate for· layin6 
a trap, investigated into the case, and later, after th~ entire investigation 
was over. he obtained pcrmis.sion from the ~Iagistrate to investigate into 
the cas-::. 
The sanction to prosecute :required under_ s. 6(1) of the Act, 
Was granted by the Chief l\Icdical Officer, who· was the hoad 
of tho 
Jcpartment. 
The conviction \\'as _challenged on the fo1Iowing grounds: (1) The 
investigation \Vas \\'ithout authority of la\v, because, under s. 
SA,· the 
Inspector could not have investigated \\ithout the prior permission of a 
)Jagistrak~ of the First Class; (2) The permission granted by the l\fagis-
t'.ratc d_id not meet the -requirements of la\V because, it was g!ven casually 
and '""ithout applying his -mind to the que·stion as to \vhcther there was 
any need for departing from the- normal rule laid down in the section. 
namely, that such cases Should· ordinarily be investigated by an officer of 
the rank of Dy. SuperintcnJcnt Of Police or above and there should be 
good reasons before a l\·lagistrate accords permission to officers below that 
rank; (3)- The presumption under s. 4 that the appc11ant h3.d accepted. -
the sum as a mOtivc or reward should not be drawn unless t~ prosecution· 
· proved that the amouilt v.·as paid as a bribe; ( 4) The presumption \\'aS 
r~buttcd by the appellant's explanation that \\'hat was paid to him was 
th~ return of a loan; and (5) the sanction- to p'rD!>ecute graritcd by the 
-Chief l\fedieal Officer. \Vas invalid as he -was not the authority competent 
to remove him; 
· 
HELD : ( 1) There is no basis for the contention that. any portion of 
the investigation was done without authority of Jaw. 
[567 DJ. . 
Investigation under s. 4(1) Cr. P.C. is one and indivisible- and in-
cludes all the steps taken by the Inspector to ascertain the truth of ,the 
complaint all·z-ging that the appellant \vas attempting to obtain 
a 
bribe_. 
Laying ·a trap~ is a ·part of the investigation and a permission given under 
s. SA of the Prevention of Corruption Act enables the officer concerned 
not only to lay a trap but also to _further inv'2·stigatc., The.fact that the 
I nspcctor of Police obtain-:!d t\\'O permissions, one for laying a trap and 
-
564 
SUPRl!MB OOUllT llBPOl.1S 
(1968) 3 S.C.R. 
another for investigating the case, does not alfect the eorlier order as the 
A 
SC-."Ond p-;!rmission was wholly superlluous. [566 G-H, 567 B-DJ 
(2) The ordet giving permission to the Inspector did not give ani 
reasons and there is thus a violation of s.. SA. But an illegality committed 
in the course of an investigation does not vitiate the mrult of a trial un-
less there was a miscarriage of justice. Jn the present ca!le the Icgalitv of 
the investigation was not challenged in the trial conn and prejudice tO the 
appellant was neither pleaded nor established. r568 ~D. F-0]. 
B 
( 3) Tho presumption under s. 4 arises when it is shown that the ac-
cused had received the stated amount and that the said amount ·was nm 
legal remuneration. [569 DJ. 
( 4) The _words 'unless the contrary is proved' in s. 4( I) show that 
the presumption was to be rebutted by proof and not by a bale explana-
tion which. i~ merely plausible. 1he burden resting on the accused "ill 
C 
however ho satisfied if he establishes h

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