STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM versus SURYA SANKARAM KARRI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 24-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VISAKHAPA TNAM 
A 
v. 
SURYA SAN KARAM KARRI 
AUGUST 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 13(2) and 17-
Conviction under, for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources 
of income-Correctness of-Held: Sanction for prosecution of Chief C 
Commercial Inspector was accorded by officer who was not authorized in 
law, thus being without jurisdiction, is nullity-Investigation was carried out 
by officers not under authorization of Superintendent of Police, thus wholly 
illegal-Also investigation was not conducted in fair manner, as such Inspector 
suffered miscarriage of justice-Thus, order of High Court setting aside the 
conviction justified-Administrative Law. 
Administrative Law-Statutory fimctionaries-Authori::ing person to 
investigate into an offence-Held: Such orders should be in writing and not 
oral. 
D 
Respondent was a Chief Commercial Inspector. Raid was conducted in E 
his house and also houses of his sons who had been working elsewhere and 
some incriminating documents were recovered. Investigation officers carried 
out investigation and recorded the statements of respondent his wife, and his 
sons. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager accorded sanction for 
prosecution. Respondent was prosecuted for possessing assets and pecuniary F 
resources in his own name as also his wife disproportionate to his known 
sources of income. He was convicted and sentenced under section 13(2) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. High Court set aside the order. Hence, 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD; 1. The investigation carried out by the Investigating Officers 
was wholly unfair ard that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager could 
not be said to have been delegated with the power of according sanction of 
prosecuting the respondent-Chief Commercial Inspector. (234-C) 
229 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. Authorization by a Superintendent of Police in favour of an officer 
so as to enable him to carry out investigation of offence under section 13(1)(e) 
in terms of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a statutory 
one. The power to grant such sanction has been conferred upon the authorities 
not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The proviso uses a negative 
B expression. It also uses the expression "shall''. Ex-facie it is mandatory in 
character. When the authority of a person to carry out investigation is 
questioned on the ground that he did not fulfil the statutory requirements 
laid down therefor in terms of the second proviso, the burden, undoubtedly, is 
on the prosecution to prove the same. It has not been disputed that the 
Investigating Officer did not produce any record to show that he had been so 
C authorized. (235-A-Df 
2.2. When a statutory functionary passes an order, authorizing a person 
to carry out a public function like investigation into an offence, an order in 
writing was required to be passed. A statutory functionary must act in a 
manner laid down in the statute. Issuance of an oral direction is not 
D contemplated under the Act. Such a concept is unknown in Administrative 
Law. The statutory functionaries are enjoined with a duty to pass written 
orders. [236-B-DI 
E 
2.3. When a document being in possession of a public functionary, who 
is under a statutory obligation to produce the same before the court of law, 
fails and/or neglects to produce the same, an adverse inference may be drawn 
against him. The Special Judge was enjoined with a duty to draw an adverse 
inference. He did not consider the question from the point of view of statutory 
requirements, but took into consideration irrelevant factors. f 236-E-F) 
F 
2.4. Investigation apart from being illegal, the manner in which the 
investigation was conducted is condemnable. The least that a court of law would 
expect from the prosecution is that the investigation would be a fair one. It 
would not only be carried out from the stand of the prosecution, but also the 
defence, particularly, in view of the fact that the onus of proof may shift to the 
accused at a later stage. The evidence of investigating officer raises doubts 
G about his bonaflde. He did not examine important witnesses and did not take 
into consideration the relevant documentary evidence and there was no 
explanation for the same. He did not ascertain the correctness or otherw

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