Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 3proviso

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 156(2),190(1)(a)(b),537

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 161

Law: Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1953

Section: 5(a)(b)

Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)------- ----- S. 3 proviso (as it stood before its omission by S. 5 (a) (ti) of Criminal Law Amendment Act (XXXVII of 1953)) (now S. 5-A)-Case investigated by Sub-Inspector of Police without authorisation from a First Class Magistrate-Trial, held, not vitiated-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 156 (2), 190 (1) (a) (b) and 537. The accused was convicted and sentenced under section 161 P. P. C. by the trial Magistrate. On appeal to the Court of Session, he was acquitted on the ground that the trial was vitiated because the police investigation was in contravention of the proviso to section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) as it stood before the amending Act (XXXVII of 1953). The investigation, partially at any rate, i.e., up to preparation of recovery memos immediately after the raid had been done by a Sub-Inspector of police without authorisation from a First Class Magistrate. Held, that even if the investigation had not been in conformity with the legal provisions of the proviso to section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it did not necessarily follow that the subsequent trial was vitiated, and this in spite of the fact, that the prosecution could not invoke section 156 (2) Criminal P. C. in respect of an unauthorised investigation. Shivbhat v. Emperor A I R 1928 Bom. 162 (D B) ; Rustom Ardeshir Banaji v. Emperor A I R 1948 Bom. 163 (D B) ; Promod Chandra Shekhar v. Rex A I R 1951 All. 546 (D B) ; Keshava Hand Srivastava v. The State A I R 1952 All. 122 (S B) and Parbhu v. Emperor A I R 1944 P C 73 ref. Sudhir Kumar v. The State A I R 1953 Cal. 226 (D B); Feroz-ud-Din v. The Crown P L D 1954 Bal. 1 and The State v. Madan Lal A I R 1954 Pb. 42 (S B) distinguished. The Crown v. Ali Gohar P L D 1954 Sind 208 and 278 ref. The trial Court has to decide the case on the basis of evidence led before it, and the mere fact that the agency which collected such evidence was in law not authorised to do so, should not introduce an inherent jurisdictional defect in the trying Court. There are no words in the proviso or anywhere in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which would lead to such a…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492