- (1.) These are appeals by Special leave against the orders of the Punjab High Court made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, reversing the orders of the Special Judge, Delhi, quashing certain criminal proceedings pending before himself against these appellants for alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. The Special Judge quashed the proceedings on the ground that the investigations on the basis of which the appellants were being prosecuted were in contravention of the provisions of subsection (4) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and hence illegal. In appeal No. 95 of 1954 the appellants are two persons by name H.N. Risbud and Indar Singh. In Appeals Nos. 96 and 97 of 1954 H.N. Risbud above mentioned is the sole appellant. These appeals raise a common question of law and are dealt with together. The appellant Risbud was the Assistant Development officer (Steel) in the office of the Directorate-General, Ministry of Industry and Supply. Government of India and the appellant. Indar Singh was the Assistant Project Section Officer (Steel) in the office of the Directorate-General, Ministry of Industry and Supply, Government of India. There appear to be a number of prosecutions pending against them before the Special Judge, Delhi, appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952). We are concerned in these appeals with Cases Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of 1953. Appeals Nos. 95, 96 and 97 arise respectively out of them. The cases against these appellants are that they along with some others entered into criminal conspiracies to obtain for themselves or for others iron and steel materials in the name of certain bogus firms and that they actually obtained quota certificates, on the strength of which some of the members of the conspiracy took delivery of quantities of iron and steel from the stock-holder of these articles. The charges, therefore, under which the various accused, including the appellants, are being prosecuted are under section 120B, I. P. C., section 420, I.P.C. and section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. In respect of such of these accused as are public servants, there are also charges under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947,
(2.) Under section 5(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, a police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall not investigate any offence punishable under sub-section (2) of section 5 without the order of a Magistrate of the First Class. The first information reports in these cases were laid in April and June, 1949, but permission of the Magistrate, for investigation as against the public servants concerned, by a police officer of a rank lower than a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was given in March and April, 1951. The charge-sheets in all these cases were filed by such officers in August and November, 1951, i.e. subsequent to the date on which permission as above was given. But admittedly the investigation was entirely or mostly completed in between the dates when the first information was laid and the permission to investigate by an officer of a lower rank was accorded. It appears from the evidence taken in this behalf that such investigation was conducted not by any Deputy Superintendent of Police but by officers of lower rank and that after the permission was accorded little or no further investigation was made. The question, therefore, that has been raised is, that the proceedings by way of trial initiated on such charge-sheets are illegal and require to be quashed.
(3.) To appreciate the argument it is necessary to notice the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 3 of the Act provides that offences punishable under section 161 or 165 I. P. C. shall be deemed to be cognizable offences. Section 4 enacts a special rule of evidence against persons accused of offences under section 161 or 165 I. P. C., throwing the burden of proof on the accused. Broadly stated, this section provides that if it is proved against an accused that he has accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed against him that this was so accepted or obtained as a motive or reward, such as is mentioned in section 161, I. P. C. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5 create a new offence of "criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty" by a public servant punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or fine or both. Sub-section (3) thereof enacts a new rule of evidence as against a person accused of the commission of offences under sections 5(1) and (2). That rule, broadly stated, is that when a person so accused, or any other person on his behalf, is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of his income and for which he cannot satisfactorily account, the Court shall presume him to be guilty of criminal misconduct unless he can displace that presumption by evidence.;