STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus SURINDER PAL SINGH

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 31-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
SURINDER PAL SINGH 
JANUARY 31, 1989 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Police Act, 1861: Section 7. 
U.P. Police Regulations-Regulation 486(1)(3) scope of-
Procedure-Whether confined to Departmental Proceedings only-Not 
applicable to investigation made in Criminal Prosecution. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 36-Does not contain a 
procedure similar to Regulation 486(1)(3) of the U.P. 
Police 
Regulations-Does not deal with competence of police officer to 
conduct investigation-Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947 overrides Section 36 of the Code. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Sections 5(1) and (2), 
5-A(J). Proviso. 
"Criminal Misconduct"-What is-Police Officer Misappropria-
A 
B 
c 
D 
tion of-20 Gold Bricks recovered during investigation-ls "criminal 
E 
misconduct" under section 5 (I)( c), punishable under section 5 (2). 
Competency of authorised police officer to investigate offence--
Section 36 of Criminal Procedure Code and Regulation 486(1)(3) of the 
U. P. Police Regulations held not applicable. 
Indian Penal Code; 1860: Sections 120-B, 203, 218, 342, 392 and 
409. 
Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878: Sections 4, 20. 
Word & Phrases: 'Criminal Misconduct'-Meaning of 
F 
G 
A First Infonnation Report was lodged against the respondent, 
who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, under Section 120-B, 203, 
218, 342, 392, 402 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under sections 4/20 of the 
Treasure Trove Act, 1878. The case against the respondent was tltat 
H 
347 
A 
B 
c 
348 
SUPREME COUR,T REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
while investigating a case, as a Station Officer of a Police station, 20 
gold bricks which he had recovered were misappropriated by him. An 
Inspector in the Crime Branch of the Criminal Investigation Depart-
ment carried on the investigation. Before, submission of the charge 
sheet the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging 
the legality of the investigation on the ground that the investigation was 
vitiated in law because it was conducted by an officer junior in rank to 
him in violation of Regulation 486(1)(3) of the U .P. Police Regulations. 
The High Court held that the provisions of Regulation 486(1)(3) 
were mandatory and since the investigation was conducted by an 
inspector who was not an officer "higher in rank than the respondent" 
the investigation was vitiated in law. Accordingly, a writ of Mandamus 
was issued by the High Court directing the appellants not to submit any 
charge sheet, hut leaving it open to the appellants to get the investigation 
conducted by an officer competent to investigate under the said 
Regulation. 
D 
In this appeal by Special leave, it was contended on behalf of the 
appellants: (i) that since one of the offences committed by the respon-
dent was under section S(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the 
inspector conducting the investigation though not higher in rank to the 
respondent at the relevant time was competent to rnnduct the investigation 
as he was authorised in this behalf by the State Government under the. 
E 
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section SA of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act: (ii) Regulation 486(1)(3) was relevant to departmental proceedings 
against a police officer and it was not applicable to investigation of an 
offence under Section S(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended: (i) that in view of 
F 
the provisions of Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
and Regulation 486(1)(3), no interference was called for •with the judg-
ment of the High Court: (ii) the offence punishable under Section S(2) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been committed by the 
respondent, because the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appel-
lants refers to demand of illegal gratification by the other two const-• 
G 
ables only, and therefore the proviso to sub-section (l) of section SA of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act was not applicable. 
Setting aside the judgment of the High Court and allowing the 
appeal. 
H 
HELD: I. The High Court erred in taking the view that notwith-
STATE OF U.P. v. S.P. SINGH 
349 
standing the provision contained in the proviso to Section SA of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act and the undisputed fact that the 
Inspector of Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, who 
conducted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.