State of U.P. v Bhagwant Kishore Joshi

• The respondent was a booking clerk of the railway at Saharanpur. He was accused of criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs 49/1/0.
• A Sub-Inspector of police made a first-stage inquiry into the matter without the Magistrate's permission. Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 barred an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent from investigating such offences without that permission. The permission was obtained later, and a charge sheet was then filed.
• The Special Judge (West), Lucknow, convicted the respondent under s.5(2) of the 1947 Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment.
• The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) set aside the conviction on 30 January 1960 for breach of s.5A. The State appealed.

1. Was the Sub-Inspector's first-stage inquiry an "investigation" within s.4(1) CrPC 1898, so that s.5A was contravened?
2. If so, did the illegality in the investigation vitiate the trial and the conviction?

• Majority (Subba Rao J., Raghubar Dayal J. agreeing): the inquiry was "investigation" under s.4(1) CrPC 1898, so s.5A was contravened.
• An illegality in investigation does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown. Following H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi and s.537 CrPC 1898, the defect in investigation does not affect the court's competence or the conviction unless it has caused a miscarriage of justice.
• No prejudice was shown, so the conviction and sentence were restored.
• Mudholkar J.: a preliminary enquiry of this kind is not an investigation at all, so there was no breach of s.5A. He also allowed the appeal.
• Result: appeal allowed; the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge were restored.

An investigation carried on in breach of a statutory safeguard is illegal, but the illegality does not by itself invalidate the trial or the conviction. The accused must show that the defect caused prejudice or a miscarriage of justice.