VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -103
339
It was contended by the appellant before the Supreme Court
that investigation was without the authority of law as investigations
were carried out by an Inspector of Police without the prior permission
of a Magistrate of First Class, that the Inspector of Police, S.P.E.,
had on 12-3-64 merely applied for and obtained from the First Class
Magistrate permission to lay trap and that the permission to investigate
the case was obtained by him only on 21-3-64 but by that time the
entire investigation was over, and that before granting the permission,
the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the question whether there
was any need for granting the same.
The Supreme Court held that the permission given was under
section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to
sec. 17 of P.C.Act, 1988). A permission under that provision is a
permission to investigate the case, laying the trap being a part of the
investigation. An investigation is one and indivisible. Section 5A
does not contemplate two sanctions one for laying the trap and
another for further investigation. Once an order under that provision
is made, that order covers the entire investigation. The Supreme
Court further held that an illegality committed in the course of an
investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the
Court for trial, and where cognizance of the case has in fact been
taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of
the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless
miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.
The appellant also contended that presumption under section
4 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 20 of
P.C. Act, 1988) does not arise unless the prosecution proved that
the amount in question was paid as a bribe and that the word
‘gratification’ can only mean something that is given as a corrupt
reward. The Supreme Court did not agree and further held that the