THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus BHAGWANT KISHORE JOSHI

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 17-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

3 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
71 
is one primarily of fact ; and it was never raised, 
nor explored in the High Court on proper pleadings. 
It would be takiug the Board by surprise to allow 
the appellant to make out this new case at this stage. 
We therefore refuse to consider the question whether 
the order passed against the appellant pursuant to 
the resolution dated October 18, 1954 was for dis-
missal of the appellant from the service of the Board, 
as a punishment for misconduct. 
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. 
Having regard to the circumstances, there will be no 
order as to costs in this Court. 
Appeal disniis <ed. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
BHAGW ANT KISH ORE JOSHI 
(K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
j. R. MUDHOLKAU JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Investigation by Police Officer be/011· the 
rank of Deputy Si<perintendent of Police-Previou8 permission 
of lrfagistrale not obtained-If proper 
inveciligation-Such 
omi!sion if vitiated the trial-Prevention of Corru7dion Act, 
19/7 (2 of 1947), s. 5A-Code of Criminal PrOC1dure, 1898 
(Act 5 of 1898), ss. 4 (1), 154, 157. 
The respondent was a hooking 
clerk. He committed 
criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 49!! !O. On the receipt 
of the abovementioned information 
the Superintendent of 
Police directed M, a Sub-Inspector of Police, to make an 
enquiry. Thereafter M verifiod 
the allegations contained in 
lhe information and examined the relevant railway records. 0 11 
1963 
S.R. Tewllri 
•• 
District Board 
~tra 
1969 
April 17 
1§63 
State ef Uttar 
Prlliesh 
•• 
~ha1want KishMrt 
Joshi 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. 
the basi• of the information collected, he submitted a report. 
M made the first stage :of investigation without obtaining the 
order of the Magistrate, !st Class.l Subsequently, M obtained 
permission of a Magistrate, !st Class, to investigate into tho 
case as required by s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
Thereafter. he made further investigation and submitted a 
charge sheet. The respondent was tried and convicted by the 
Special Judge under s. 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 
On appeal the High Court set aside the conviction:mair,]y on 
the ground that the first stage of the investigation was contrary 
to s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the accused 
must be held to have been seriously prejudiced by the said 
contravention of the Act. 
Held (per Subba Rao and Dayal, JJ.), that the first stage 
of investigation made by M, before obtaining the requisite 
permission of the Magistrate, !st Class, under s. 5A of the 
Act, was an "investigation" within the meaning of s. 4 ( l) of 
the code of Criminal Procedure. M received 
through the 
report a detailed information of the offence alle1:ed to have 
been committed by the accused with necessary particulars; he 
proceeded to the spot of the offence, ascertained the relevant 
facts by going through the railway records, and submitted a 
report. These acts constituted an investigation within the 
meaning of the definition of "investigation" under s. 4 (I) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such there was a contra-
vention of s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
Subsequently M rectified the earlier defect by obtaining 
the permission of the Magistrate, !st Class, to investigate into 
the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused and 
in effect . there was practically de nova investigation in strict 
compliance with the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure. 
In fact, the accused has not been prejudiced by the illegality 
committed by the Police in the first stage of investigation. The 
conviction of an accused cannot be set aside on the ground 
, of some irregularity or illegality in the matter of investigation, 
there must be sufficient nexus either established or probabilized, 
between the conviction and the irregularity in the investigation. 
H. N. Rishbud and lnder Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955] 
I S. C.R. 1150, relied on. 
In re Nanumuri Anandayya, A. I. R. 1915 Mad. 312, 
In re Rangarajulu, A. I. R. 1958 Mad, 368 and The State of 
Kerala v. M . .T. Samuel, I. L. R. 1960 Kerala 783, referred tQ. 
-
, 
• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
73 
Per Mudholkar J .-In fact there was no defect or irregu· 
larity in conducting the first stage of investigation. Investi· 
gation, in substance, means collection of evidence relating to 
the commission of offence for establishing the accu,ation against 
the offender. It is ope
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.