UNION OF INDIA versus MAJ. I. C. LALA ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 29-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MAJ. I. C. LALA ETC. ETC. 
March 29, 1973 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. Dl!A AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ;} 
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), Ss. I2()B, 420 and 511, Preven· 
tion of Corruption Ac; (2 of 1947), s. 5(1)(d), 5(2) and 5A, Criminal 
law Amendment Act, 1952 Ss. 6 and 7(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 
Act 5 of 1898), Ss. 196A, 235 and 239-0fjence committed at more than 
one place-Order of which magistrate necessary--Cognizable and non-
cognizab/e offences-Crit'erion-Jurisdiction to try non-Government 
sel'~ 
vant with Governnient servants. 
Practice-Duty of court to decide on genuineness of sanctfion. 
Two army officers and a businessman were put up for trial before the 
Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. 
They 
\\·ere all charged with offences of conspiracy under s. J 20B, I.P.C. read 
with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and s. 420 I.P.C. The 
businessman was charged under s. 42() and ss. 420 and 511, l.P.C. The 
two army officers were also charged with the offences under s. 420 I.P.C. 
read withs. 5(1J(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After some 
\\'itnesses were examined· by the prosecution, on a petition by the three 
accused, the High Court quashed the charges and the proceedings on the 
grounds. ( 1) that the officer who investigated the case was not competent 
to do so; (2) that the offences were non-eognizable and hence the Special 
Judge could not take cognizance of them without sanction under s. 196A. 
Cr.P.C.; and (3) in view of the enormous length of time that elapsed 
between the date the registration of the case and the examination of the 
\\'itness~s (about 4! years), to proceed further with the case would be an 
abuse of the process of Court causing harassment to the accused. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD; (I) (a) Under s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
before it was amended in 1964, no officer below the rank of Deputy Supe~ 
rintendent of Police could investigate into .offences 
punishable 
under 
Ss .. 161, 165, 165A l.P.C., or under s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, without the orders of a Presidency Magistrate or the Magistrate First 
Class. 
Where an offence is committed in more than one place the order 
of every Magistrate within \Vhose jurisdiction the offence or part of the 
offence was committed was not necessary to enable the investigation to be 
carried on. 
All that is necessary is that the 
~fagistrate who makes the 
order under s. 5A should have territorial jurisdiction over the place where 
any part of the offence took p1ace. 
In the present case; the offence of 
conspiracy was aileged to h.ave been committed both at Tejpur as well as 
at Gauhati and the Inspector concerned had obtained the order Of the First 
Class Magistrate, Tejpur. 
[821H; 822A-C] 
Chinnappa v. State of Mysore, A.LR. 1960 Mysore 242, Chatterjea v. 
Delhi Special Police Establish111ent I.L.R. 1969 Assarn and Nagaland 275 
and Union of India v. B. N. Ananthdpadn1anabbiah, A.LR. 
1971 
S.C. 
1836, referred to. 
(b) The High Court expressed doubt whether the order of the Magis· 
trate of Tejpur was a genuine one. 
If he had any such doubt it was the 
Juty of the Judge to have gone into the matter thoroughly and satisfied 
818 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
• 
.lL·_ ·_ 
. 
A 
B 
c 
•D 
UNION v. I. c. LALA (Alagiriswami, J.) 
81!} 
himself whether the order· was genuine or not, and given a categorical 
finding on the matter. There should have been no room allowed for any 
doubt, or 5uspicion of any underhand 
dealing or unfair conduct, in · a 
matter of this kind. [823A-Cj 
(2) Under Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code offences under 
Ss. 161 to 165, I.P.C. and offences punishable with imprisonment for life 
or impri"onment o'f 7 years and up\vards are shown as cognizable offences. 
Under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the sentence may ex-
tend to 7 years. 
Therefore, an offence under s. 5 of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act is a cognizable offence. 
The words 'notwhhstanding any· 
thing .contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure", in· the section merely 
carve out a limited exemption from the provisions of Criminal Procedure 
Code in so far as they limit the- class of_ persons who are competent to 
investigate, and to arrest without a warrant. The mere fact that under 
·the Act certai,n restrictions are placed as to the officers who are competent 
to investigate into the offences mentioned in s. SA would not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.