http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
PETITIONER: H. N. RISHBUD AND INDER SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF DELHI(And connected Appeals)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/1954
BENCH: JAGANNADHADAS, B. BENCH: JAGANNADHADAS, B. MUKHERJEA, B.K. BOSE, VIVIAN
CITATION: 1955 AIR 196 1955 SCR (1)1150
ACT: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), s. 5(4) and proviso to s. 3-Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act, 1952 (LIX of 1952), s. 5-A-Whether mandatory or directory-Cognizance taken on a police report vitiated by a breach of mandatory provisions -Legal effect thereof.
HEADNOTE: Held, that s. 5(4) and proviso to s. 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947) and the corresponding s. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act, 1952 (LIX of 1952) are mandatory and not directory and that an investigation conducted in violation thereof is illegal. If cognizance is in fact taken on a police report in breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, the results which follow cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. It is well-settled that an illegality committed in the course of an investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to terminati...