LexTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MUBARAK ALI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 201 Coal Company v. Boloram Mahata (1) was relied upon. 1959 Coutts Trotter, C. J., was also of the opinion that the Mangalmurti covenant was not too vague to be enforced. But this v. again was a case not of interfering with the deter- State of Bombay mination of a valuer but of specific performance of a contract of renewal and it was held that by taking evidence even a vague and indefinite covenant relating to renewal could be made definite. In my opinion, therefore, the Court cannot go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the deter- mination of the lease and the appeal should therefore be dismissed with costs. BY OouRT.-In view of the opinion of the majority, the appeals are allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the High Court dated September 30, 1952. No order as to costs of the hearing in this Court. .Appeals allowed . . THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MUBARAK ALI (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.) Criminal Law-Public servant receiving bribe-Investigation by officer below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police-Permission to investigate granted by Magistrate-Order not disclosing material before Magistrate nor disclosing reasons for order-Permission, if invalid-Investigation, scope of-Prevention of Corruption Act, r947 (2 of r947), s. 5A-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (Act 5 of I898), S. 4(I)." Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, pro- vided: "No police officer below the rank ......... of a deputy Superintendent shall investigate any offence punishable under s. 161, s. 165 or s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code or under s. 5(2) of the Act without the order of. ........ a magistrate of the first class ......... ". (1) (1880) L.R. 7 I.A. ro;. 26 Kapur .f. I959 February 3. I959 The State of M adhy.i l'radesh v. Mubarak Ali 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. On January II, 1955, B, the manager of a company, gave information to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, that the respondent, an Assistant Station Master, was demanding a bribe for sending the goods belonging to the company by raiL The Sub-Inspector, after assisting B to trap the respondent, came on the scene, questioned the latter, search- ed his person and recovered the marked notes and other articles from him. The Sub-Inspector filed an application before the District Magistrate, stating that he had been deputed to investi- gate the case and the permission might be given to him to do so under s. 5A of the Act. On the application the Magistrate passed the order ' 1 permission given." Neither the application nor the order made thereon disclosed that any material was placed before the Magistrate on the basis of which he gave permission. A charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge. The respon- dent filed objections questioning, inter alia, the validity of the Magistrate giving permission to the Sub-Inspector to make the investigation. The Special Judge disallowed the objection. On revision, the High Court set aside the order of the Special Judge with a direction that" in order to rectify the defects and cure the illegality" he should order the Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry on the investigation himsef while the case remained pending on his file. The State preferred an appeal against the order of the High Court by special leave:- Held, that the statutory safeguards under s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act must strictly be complied with for they were conceived in public interest and were provided as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious prosecution~. A Magistrate cannot surrender his discretion to a police officer, but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material made available to him at the stage of granting permission. He must also be satisfied that there is sufficient reason owing to the exigencies of the administrative convenience to entrust a sub- ordinate officer with the investigation. Where an officer other than the designated officer seeks to make an investigation, he should get order of a Magistrate em- powering him to do so before he proceeds to investigate, and it is desirable that the order giving the permission should ordi- narily on the face of it disclose the reasons for giving permis- sion. Where objection is taken by the accused that the order giving permission was invalid, the prosecution, at the ea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.