Summary
The appellant was the dealing clerk in the labour office Delhi in April 1965. He was tried and convicted by the Special Judge Delhi under s. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
His appeal to the High Court of Delhi was dismissed by the Single Judge. In appeal by special leave to this Court it was contended that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, as amended, prescribes special powers and procedure for investigation of offences of bribery and corruption and as the appellant was an employee of the Central Public Work Department offences against him could only be investigated by the Special Police Establishment.His prosecution based on investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of the Anti-corruption Department of the Delhi Administration was therefore, according to the appellant, illegal. This contention, raised for the first time in this Court, was allowed to be urged in view of the decision of this court in Ahuluwalia's case.HELD : (i) Statement of objects and reasons for introducing a Bill in the legislature is not admissible as an aid. to the construction of the statute as enacted; far less can it control the meaning of the actual words used in the Act. It can only be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the circumstances which actuated the sponsor of the Bill to introduce it and the purpose for doing so.[484G-H](ii) The preamble of a statute, which is often described as a key to the understanding of it, may legitimately be consulted to solve an ambiguity or to ascertain and fix the meaning of words in their context which otherwise bear more meanings than one. It may afford useful assistance as to what the statute intends to reach. But if the enactment is clear and unambiguous in itself then no premble can vary its meaning. While construing a statute one has also to bear in mind the presumption that the legislature does not intend to make any substantial alteration in the existing law beyond what it expressly declares or beyond the immediate scope and o bject of the statute. [485A-B](iii) The scheme of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their Jurisdiction, power and competence to investigate into offences under any other competent law. As general rule it would require clear and express language to effectively exclude as a matter, of law the power of investigation for the offences mentioned 47 8 in the notification dated November 6, 1956, under s. 3 of the Act, from the jurisdiction and competence of the regular police authorities conferred on them by the Cr.P.C. and other laws and to vest this power exclusively in the D.S.P.E. The D.S.P.E. Act seems to be only permissive or empowering, intended merely to enable the D.S.P.E. also to investigate into the offences specified as contemplated by section 3 without impairing any other law empowering police authorities to investigate offences. [486B-F](iv) The plain meaning of sub-section (1) of s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 appears to be that Inspectors of Police of D.S.P.E. in all places, Assistant Commissioners of Police in the Presidency towns of Calcutta and Madras, Superintendent of Police in the Presidency town of Bombay, and Deputy Superintendents of Police in all places other than Presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay are authorised to investigate into the offences mentioned therein. The word 'elsewhere' in cl.(d) does not indicate that a Deputy Superintendent of Police in debarred from investigating offences mentioned in this clause even when so ordered by a Magistrate First Class in the areas in which D.S.P.E. is also empowered to function. The word'elsewhere' in clause (d) appears to refer only to the three Presidency towns mentioned in clauses (b) and (c). This sub-section therefore does not confer sole power on D.S.P.E. to investigate into the offences mentioned therein to the complete exclusion of the regular police force. It is merely concerned with the object of making provision for safeguarding against arbitrary use of power of investigation by officers below certain ranks so that public servants concerned are saved from frivolous harassment at the hands of disgruntled persons. it is also noteworthy that apart from the restrictions in s. 5A(1) the applicability of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. to the proceedings in relation to the offences mentioned in that subsections, is, subject to certain modifications contained in s. 7A, expressly recognised. [488D-G](v) The schemes of the two enactments, namely, the D.S.P.E.Act, 1946 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 suggest that they are intended to serve as supplementary provisions of law designed to function harmoniously in aid of each other and of the existing regular police investigating agencies for effectively achieving the object of successful investigation into the serious offences mentioned in s. 5A without unreason-ably exposing the public servant concerned to frivolous and vexatious proceedings. [488G-H; 489A](vi) The above interpretation is supported by D.O. No.21(8)63GD dated October 5, 1963 addressed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to the Inspectors General of Police.No doubt the letter contains only , administrative instructions but it clearly show the construction placed during all these years by the administrative officers concerned. If the view stated in this letter is not clearly against the language and scheme of the Act in question then, it is entitled to due consideration and has some persuasive value. Reference to the St-ate Police in the D.O. includes the police force of the Union Territory of Delhi. [489F-H;490A](vii) In the present case the investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police could not be considered to be in any way unauthorised or contrary to law. The function of investigation is merely to collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality in the course of collection of evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court of the offence so investigated. [490A-C]479 (viii) it was not possible to find any infirmity in judgment of the High Court upholding the prosecution story and convicting the appellant and there was no cogent ground for reappraising the evidence. There was absolutely no extraordinary reason for departing from the normal rule of practice according to which this Court accepts the conclusions of facts arrived at by the High Court to be final. There. was no grave injustice as a result of any irregularity or other infirmity either in the trial or in the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. [491D-F]H. N. Bishabud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955] 1S.C.R. 1150, Munna Lal v. The State of U.P. Crl. A. Nos.102-104 of 1961 d/April 17, 1963, State of Madhya Pradesh v.Mubarak Ali, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 707, State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Venugopal, [1964] 3 S. C. R. 743 and Khandu Sonu Dhobi v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. A. No. 105 of 1969d/February 15, 1972, applied.R. J. Singh Ahuluwalia v. The State of Delhi, [1970] 3S.C.R. 451, Abdul Halim v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 257, Om Prakash v. State, A.I.R. 1964 Punjab 407, Labh Shankar V. State of Saurashtra, A.I.R. 1955 Saurashtra 42 Kharati Lal v. State, 1965, D.L..T 362 and Kartar Singh v.State, Crl. A. No. 42 of 1971 decided on October 13, 1971, referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
A. C. Sharma VS. Delhi Administration
PETITIONER: A. C. SHARMA Vs.RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATIONDATE OF JUDGMENT05/02/1973BENCH: DUA, I.D.BENCH: DUA, I.D.ALAGIRISWAMI, A.VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.CITATION: 1973 AIR 913 1973 SCR (3) 477 1973 SCC (1) 726CITATOR INFO : R 1992 SC 604 (121,134)ACT: Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 25 of 1946- Notification under s. 3 of Act, being notification No.7/5/55-A.V.D. dated November 6, 1966, conferring jurisdiction on Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate inter alia offences under 161, 165 165A Indian Penal Code and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947-Jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Department of Delhi Administration whether completely displaced-Schemes of Act 25 of 1946 and Act 2 of 1947-Persuasive value of administrative instructions in interpreting statute-Defect in investigation, effect of-Word 'elsewhere' in s. 5A (1) (d) of Act 2 of 1947, meaning of.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1973.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 29th October 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Cr. A. No. 1 of 1966.Frank Anthony and K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant. Gobind Das and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.F. S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor-General of India, and B. D. Sharma, for the Attorney-General for India.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DuA, J.-The appellant was the dealing clerk in the Labour Office, Delhi, in April, 1965. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- with two, months further rigorous imprisonment...
See the full content of this document