Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
S. 17 second proviso Provision under, that investigation in offence not to be carried out without authorisation by police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police Nature of Held, is mandatory in character, (2006) 7 SCC 172-A
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
S. 17 Non obstante clause occurring in, held, makes investigation only by police officers of the ranks specified therein to be imperative in character, (2006) 7 SCC 172-B
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
S. 17 second proviso Provision under, that investigation in offence not to be carried out without authorisation by police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police Challenge to investigation on ground of non-fulfilment of said requirement Burden of proof in relation to Held, was on prosecution Investigating officer in the present case failed to produce any record to show that he had been granted the aforesaid authorisation, (2006) 7 SCC 172-C
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
S. 17 second proviso Order by Superintendent of Police authorising a police officer to conduct investigation, held, was required to be passed in writing, (2006) 7 SCC 172-D
Administrative Law
Administrative bodies
Administrative/ Statutory authorities Exercise of statutory power Mode of passing orders Held, statutory functionaries are enjoined with a duty to pass written orders Concept of issuance of oral direction is unknown in administrative law, (2006) 7 SCC 172-E
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
S. 19 Sanction for prosecution granted by a person not authorised in law Validity of Held, it being without jurisdiction, would be a nullity PW 37 was not competent to accord sanction for prosecution of respondent Nothing to show that he was delegated with power to accord sanction Hence, grant of sanction by him was vitiated in law, (2006) 7 SCC 172-F
Criminal Trial
Investigation
Manner in which to be carried out Held, a fair investigation is expected from the prosecution Investigation to be carried out not only 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, (2006) 7 SCC 172-G
Criminal Trial
Investigation
Illegal investigation Effect of Held, proceedings may not be quashed only on the basis of illegal investigation unless miscarriage of justice is shown In the present case the accused had suffered miscarriage of justice as the investigation conducted was not fair, (2006) 7 SCC 172-H
Criminal Trial
Investigation
Illegal investigation Investigation without valid sanction Duty of courts in case of Held, courts are obliged to go into the question whether it resulted in prejudice to the accused, (2006) 7 SCC 172-I
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 114 Ill. (g) Document in possession of a public functionary, who is under a statutory obligation to produce the same before the court of law His failure to produce it before the court Effect of Held, adverse inference may be drawn against him, (2006) 7 SCC 172-J
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
S. 13(1)(e) r/w S. 13(2) Acquisition of property by accused disproportionate to his known sources of income Property in name of accused and his wife Conviction by trial court taking the view that except one son, no other sons of accused made contributions to their parents from their income Setting aside of, by High Court Propriety of Illegal and unfair investigation Non-examination of important witnesses and non-consideration of relevant documentary evidence by IO No explanation therefor Failure of IO to ascertain correctness of status of accused and his wife before Income Tax Department Further, non-production of relevant statements of accused and his wife and sons before court Sanction for prosecution invalid Investigation carried out without requisite authorisation under the PC Act Considering these facts, held, judgment of High Court not liable to be interfered with, (2006) 7 SCC 172-K
|