{"id":112407,"date":"1973-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973"},"modified":"2019-03-20T03:02:00","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T21:32:00","slug":"a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973","title":{"rendered":"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 913, \t\t 1973 SCR (3) 477<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nA. C. SHARMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDELHI ADMINISTRATION\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  913\t\t  1973 SCR  (3) 477\n 1973 SCC  (1) 726\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1992 SC 604\t (121,134)\n\n\nACT:\nDelhi\tSpecial\t Police\t Establishment\tAct  25\t  of   1946-\nNotification  under  s.\t 3 of Act,  being  notification\t No.\n7\/5\/55-A.V.D.\t dated\t November   6,\t 1966,\t  conferring\njurisdiction  on  Delhi\t Special  Police  Establishment\t  to\ninvestigate  inter alia offences under 161, 165 165A  Indian\nPenal  Code and offences under the Prevention of  Corruption\nAct 2 of 1947-Jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Department\nof Delhi Administration whether completely displaced-Schemes\nof  Act\t 25 of 1946 and Act 2 of  1947-Persuasive  value  of\nadministrative\tinstructions in interpreting  statute-Defect\nin investigation, effect of-Word 'elsewhere' in s.     5A\n(1) (d) of Act 2 of 1947, meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\twas the dealing clerk in the  labour  office\nDelhi  in  April 1965.\tHe was tried and  convicted  by\t the\nSpecial\t  Judge\t Delhi\tunder  s.  5(2)\t of  Prevention\t  of\nCorruption  Act\t and section 161 of the Indian\tPenal  Code.\nHis  appeal to the High Court of Delhi was dismissed by\t the\nSingle\tJudge.\tIn appeal by special leave to this Court  it\nwas  contended that the Delhi Special  Police  Establishment\nAct,  1946,  as\t amended,  prescribes  special\tpowers\t and\nprocedure  for\tinvestigation  of offences  of\tbribery\t and\ncorruption  and\t as  the appellant was an  employee  of\t the\nCentral\t Public Work Department offences against  him  could\nonly  be investigated by the Special  Police  Establishment.\nHis  prosecution  based\t on  investigation  by\tthe   Deputy\nSuperintendent\tof  the Anti-corruption\t Department  of\t the\nDelhi\tAdministration\twas  therefore,\t according  to\t the\nappellant,  illegal.  This contention, raised for the  first\ntime  in this Court, was allowed to be urged in view of\t the\ndecision of this court in Ahuluwalia's case.\nHELD : (i) Statement of objects and reasons for\t introducing\na  Bill in the legislature is not admissible as an  aid.  to\nthe construction of the statute as enacted; far less can  it\ncontrol the meaning of the actual words used in the Act.  It\ncan  only  be  referred\t to  for  the  limited\tpurpose\t  of\nascertaining the circumstances which actuated the sponsor of\nthe  Bill  to  introduce it and the purpose  for  doing\t so.\n[484G-H]\n(ii) The preamble of a statute, which is often described  as\na  key\tto  the understanding of  it,  may  legitimately  be\nconsulted to solve an ambiguity or to ascertain and fix\t the\nmeaning of words in their context which otherwise bear\tmore\nmeanings  than one.  It may afford useful assistance  as  to\nwhat the statute intends to reach.  But if the enactment  is\nclear and unambiguous in itself then no premble can vary its\nmeaning.  While construing a statute one has also to bear in\nmind the presumption that the legislature does not intend to\nmake  any substantial alteration in the existing law  beyond\nwhat  it  expressly declares or beyond the  immediate  scope and o\nbject of the statute. [485A-B]\n(iii)  The scheme of the Delhi Special Police  Establishment\nAct  does not either expressly or by  necessary\t implication\ndivest the regular police authorities of their Jurisdiction,\npower and competence to investigate into offences under\t any\nother competent law.  As general rule it would require clear\nand express language to effectively exclude as a matter,  of\nlaw the power of investigation for the offences mentioned\n47 8\nin  the notification dated November 6, 1956, under s.  3  of\nthe Act, from the jurisdiction and competence of the regular\npolice\tauthorities  conferred on them by the  Cr.P.C.\tand\nother  laws  and  to  vest this\t power\texclusively  in\t the\nD.S.P.E.  The  D.S.P.E. Act seems to be only  permissive  or\nempowering,  intended merely to enable the D.S.P.E. also  to\ninvestigate  into the offences specified as contemplated  by\nsection 3 without impairing any other law empowering  police\nauthorities to investigate offences. [486B-F]\n(iv) The  plain meaning of sub-section (1) of s. 5A  of\t the\nPrevention  of\tCorruption  Act\t 1947  appears\tto  be\tthat\nInspectors  of Police of D.S.P.E. in all  places,  Assistant\nCommissioners of Police in the Presidency towns of  Calcutta\nand Madras, Superintendent of Police in the Presidency\ttown\nof  Bombay,  and  Deputy Superintendents of  Police  in\t all\nplaces\tother than Presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras\t and\nBombay\tare  authorised\t to investigate\t into  the  offences\nmentioned therein.  The word 'elsewhere' in cl.(d) does\t not\nindicate that a Deputy Superintendent of Police in  debarred\nfrom  investigating offences mentioned in this\tclause\teven\nwhen so ordered by a Magistrate First Class in the areas  in\nwhich  D.S.P.E.\t is also empowered to  function.   The\tword\n'elsewhere' in clause (d) appears to refer only to the three\nPresidency  towns  mentioned in clauses (b) and\t (c).\tThis\nsub-section therefore does not confer sole power on D.S.P.E.\nto  investigate into the offences mentioned therein  to\t the\ncomplete  exclusion  of\t the regular police  force.   It  is\nmerely\tconcerned  with the object of making  provision\t for\nsafeguarding against arbitrary use of power of investigation\nby  officers  below certain ranks so  that  public  servants\nconcerned  are saved from frivolous harassment at the  hands\nof  disgruntled\t persons. it is also noteworthy\t that  apart\nfrom  the restrictions in s. 5A(1) the applicability of\t the\nprovisions of the Cr.P.C. to the proceedings in relation  to\nthe  offences mentioned in that subsections, is, subject  to\ncertain\t  modifications\t contained  in\ts.   7A,   expressly\nrecognised. [488D-G]\n(v)  The schemes of the two enactments, namely, the D.S.P.E.\nAct,  1946  and Prevention of Corruption Act,  1947  suggest\nthat they are intended to serve as supplementary  provisions\nof  law\t designed to function harmoniously in  aid  of\teach\nother  and  of\tthe existing  regular  police  investigating\nagencies for effectively achieving the object of  successful\ninvestigation  into the serious offences mentioned in s.  5A\nwithout unreason-ably exposing the public servant  concerned\nto frivolous and vexatious proceedings. [488G-H; 489A]\n(vi) The  above\t interpretation\t is supported  by  D.O.\t No.\n21(8)63GD  dated  October 5, 1963 addressed by\tthe  Central\nBureau\t of   Investigation,  Ministry\tof   Home   Affairs,\nGovernment  of India, to the Inspectors General\t of  Police.\nNo   doubt  the\t letter\t contains  only\t  ,   administrative\ninstructions  but  it clearly show the\tconstruction  placed\nduring\tall  these  years  by  the  administrative  officers\nconcerned.  If the view stated in this letter is not clearly\nagainst the language and scheme of the Act in question then,\nit is entitled to due consideration and has some  persuasive\nvalue.\tReference to the St-ate Police in the D.O.  includes\nthe  police force of the Union Territory of Delhi.  [489F-H;\n490A]\n(vii)\t  In  the  present  case the  investigation  by\t the\nDeputy\tSuperintendent of Police could not be considered  to\nbe in any way unauthorised or contrary to law.\tThe function\nof  investigation  is  merely to collect  evidence  and\t any\nirregularity or even illegality in the course of  collection\nof  evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to  affect\nthe legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court of\nthe offence so investigated. [490A-C]\n479\n(viii)\t  it  was  not\tpossible to find  any  infirmity  in\njudgment of the High Court    upholding\t  the\t prosecution\nstory and convicting the appellant and there was  no  cogent\nground for reappraising the evidence.  There was  absolutely\nno  extraordinary reason for departing from the normal\trule\nof  practice  according\t to which  this\t Court\taccepts\t the\nconclusions  of\t facts arrived at by the High  Court  to  be\nfinal.\t There.\t was no grave injustice as a result  of\t any\nirregularity  or other infirmity either in the trial  or  in\nthe judgments of the trial court and the High Court.  [491D-\nF]\nH.   N.\t Bishabud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, [1955]  1\nS.C.R.\t1150, Munna Lal v. The State of U.P. Crl.   A.\tNos.<\/a>\n102-104 of 1961 d\/April 17, 1963, State of Madhya Pradesh v.\nMubarak\t Ali, A.I.R.<\/a> 1959 S.C. 707, State of Andhra  Pradesh\nv. M. Venugopal,<\/a> [1964] 3 S. C. R. 743 and Khandu Sonu Dhobi\nv. State of Maharashtra, Crl. A.   No.<\/a>\t  105 of    1969\nd\/February 15, 1972, applied.\nR.   J.\t Singh\tAhuluwalia v. The State of Delhi,<\/a>  [1970]  3\nS.C.R. 451, Abdul Halim v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1961\nCal. 257, Om Prakash v. State, A.I.R. 1964 Punjab 407,\tLabh\nShankar\t V. State of Saurashtra, A.I.R. 1955  Saurashtra  42\nKharati\t Lal v. State, 1965, D.L..T 362 and Kartar Singh  v.\nState, Crl.  A. No. 42 of 1971 decided on October 13,  1971,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 28  of
\n1973.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\n29th  October 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New  Delhi  in
\nCr. A.\t  No. 1 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
Frank  Anthony and K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant.  Gobind
\nDas and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
\nF.   S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor-General of India,\t and
\nB.   D. Sharma, for the Attorney-General for India.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDuA,  J.-The appellant was the dealing clerk in\t the  Labour Offic
\ne,  Delhi,  in April, 1965.  He was convicted  by  the
\nSpecial\t Judge,\t Delhi under s. 5(2) of\t the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption   Act  and  sentenced  to  one  year’s   rigorous
\nimprisonment and fine of Rs. 200\/- with two, months  further
\nrigorous imprisonment in case of default.  He was also found
\nguilty and convicted of an offence under s. 161, I.P.C.\t and
\nsentenced  to rigorous imprisonment for (one year.  The\t two
\nsubstantive  sentences were directed to be concurrent.\t His
\nappeal\tto  the\t High Court of Delhi  was  dismissed  by  ,a
\nlearned\t single Judge.\tHe appeals to this Court by  special
\nleave.\t His  application for leave is\tdated  December\t 20,
\n1969.\tIn that application one of the grounds taken by\t him
\nquestioned  the\t legality  of  the  investigation  into\t the
\noffences  against  him by the Deputy Superintendent  of\t the
\nAnti-Corruption\t Department  of\t the  Delhi  Administration.
\nAccording to this ground the Delhi Special
\n480<\/span>
\nPolice\tEstablishment  Act  as\tamended\t prescribes  special
\npowers\tand  procedure\tfor  investigation  of\toffences  of
\nbribery\t and  corruption in the departments of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  and\t as  the appellant was an  employee  of\t the
\nCentral Public Works Department, offences against him  could
\nonly  be investigated by the Special  Police  Establishment.
\nThe  investigation_having  not been done  by  the  D.S.P.E.,
\naccording  to  the  appellant, his trial  is  vitiated.\t  In
\nsupport of this ground the appellant presented in this Court
\nan application dated January 13, 1970 seeking permission  to
\nplace  on  the\trecord\ta letter  dated\t February  10,\t1966
\npurporting to have been written by the S.P.  Anti-Corruption
\nBranch,\t Delhi and addressed to the appellant  stating\tthat
\nthe  anti-corruption branch of Delhi Administration was\t not
\ncompetent  to make an enquiry into the allegations  levelled
\nagainst\t  c.P.W.D.  employee  being  a\tCentral\t  Government
\nemployee.   This Court, while granting special\tleave,\talso
\npermitted the appellant to urge additional grounds.
\nWe  now\t turn to the, facts giving rise to this\t case.\t One
\nBakht  Ram, a labour supplier had to get about\tRs.  3,500\/-
\nfrom  one  Umrao Singh, a contractor, who was  evading\tthis
\npayment.   Bakht  Ram moved the Labour Officer\tfor  relief.
\nThe Labour Officer stopped payment to the contractor to\t the
\nextent\tof the amount claimed by Bakht Ram but as  the\tcase
\nwas  not  being\t dealt with as expeditiously  as  Bakht\t Ram
\nexpected or desired, he approached the appellant who was the
\ndealing\t clerk\tfor expeditious disposal of the\t case.\t The
\nappellant  demanded  Rs. 100\/by way of bribe for  using\t his
\ngood offices.  The matter was ultimately settled at Rs. 50\/-
\nand  the  amount  was to be paid on April 27,  1965  at\t the
\nLabour\tOffice or at the house of the appellant.  Bakht\t Ram
\nthereupon  reported the matter to the Deputy  Superintendent
\nof  Police  (Anti-Corruption  Branch)  and  produced   three
\ncurrency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10\/- each which he
\nproposed  to  pay to the appellant.  The  numbers  of  these
\ncurrency  notes were noted by the Deputy  Superintendent  of
\nPolice\tin the presence of two witnesses and Bakht  Ram\t was
\ninstructed  to\tmake the payment in the\t presence  of  those
\nwitnesses.   Bakht Ram then proceeded to the office  of\t the
\nLabour Officer along with the said two witnesses followed by
\nthe  police  party headed by the  Deputy  Superintendent  of
\nPolice.\t  As the appellant was not present in the office  of
\nthe Labour Officer the party proceeded to his house.   Bakht
\nRam  called the appellant out from his house and  they\tboth
\nwent to a tea shop nearby.  The two witnesses followed them.
\nWithin\ttheir hearing Bakht Ram told the appellant  that  he
\nhad  brought  Rs. 30\/- with him and that he  would  pay\t the
\nbalance\t later.\t He requested the appellant to see that\t the
\nLabour\tOfficer\t passed\t requisite  orders  on\tBakht\tRams
\napplication  claiming Rs. 3,500\/-.  The appellant agreed  to
\nsee that the Labour Officer
\n481<\/span>
\npassed\tthe  necessary orders.\tHe received  Rs.  30\/-\tfrom
\nBakht Ram and put the currency notes in his pocket.  One  of
\nthe two witnesses at this stage gave a signal and the D.S.P.
\ncame  to  the  spot.  The currency notes  in  question\twere
\nrecovered  from the appellant’s possession.  They  bore\t the
\nsame numbers as had been noted by the D.S.P.
\nAt  the\t trial the appellant’s plea was that Bakht  Ram\t had
\nborrowed  from him Rs. 40\/- on April 1, 1965 and the  amount
\nrecovered  from\t him by the D.S.P. was the  amount  paid  by
\nBakht  Ram  towards  the discharge of that  loan.   He\talso
\nproduced  four\twitnesses in support of\t his  version.\t The
\nlearned\t Special Judge considered the  prosecution  evidence
\nand  held that the receipt of money having been admitted  by
\nthe appellant, the onus lay on him to rebut the\t presumption
\nraised\tby s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.   After
\nconsidering the appellant’s plea and appraising the evidence
\nproduced  by  him in support thereof,  the  learned  Special
\nJudge concluded that the burden had not been discharged.  In
\nhis  view,  the\t defence witnesses were\t interested  in\t the
\nappellant  and one of them, being the General  Secretary  of
\nthe  Congress  Mandal, Lajpatnagar, New Delhi  and  in\tthat
\ncapacity wielding some infouence, had also tried to help the
\nappellant.  The testimony of these witnesses did not impress
\nthe   Special  Judge.\tHolding\t the  appellant\t guilty\t  he
\nconvicted him and imposed the sentence, as already noticed.
\nOn appeal the High Court agreed with the view, taken by\t the
\ntrial court.  According to the High Court also the appellant
\nhaving\tadmitted  receipt of a sum of Rs. 30\/- from  P.W.  1
\nBakht  Ram  on the date of the offence, under s.  4  of\t the
\nPrevention  of\tCorruption Act, the burden lay upon  him  to
\nprove  that this amount had been received otherwise than  by
\nway of illegal gratification.  The testimony of the  defence
\nwitnesses was not considered acceptable and the order of the
\ntrial court was affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
In this Court Mr. Anthony questioned the legality of the in-
\nvestigation by submitting that the only police agency having
\njurisdiction  to  investigate into the\tallegations  against
\nthe,  appellant was the Delhi Special Police  Establishment.
\nThe  investigation  by the  anti-corruption  branch,  Delhi,
\nbeing thus without jurisdiction, it\twas  contended\tthat
\nthe appellant’s trial and conviction were, on\t  this
\nground alone, wholly illegal.  Mr. Anthony relied on R.\t  J.
\nSingh Ahuluwalia v. The State of Delhi<\/a>(1) in sustaining\t his
\nright to raise this point for the first time in this appeal,
\nas  according to his submission, it goes to the root of\t the
\nvalidity  of  the investigation.  If  the  investigation  is
\nunauthorised   the  trial  springing  from  it\t cannot\t  be
\nconsidered lawful, said the counsel.  The appel-
\n(1)  (1970) 3 S.C.R. 451.\n<\/p>\n
482<\/span><\/p>\n
lant  having  been permitted to urge additional\t ground\t and
\nthere being no objection by the other side, in the  interest
\nof  justice we heard the parties on the new  objection.\t  As
\nthe point raised related to the validity of central laws  we
\ndirected notice to the Attorney General and pursuant to that
\nnotice heard Mr. Nariman, Additional
\nThe  short but important question with far-reaching  effect,
\nif the appellant’s contention were to prevail, requiring our
\ndecision  is,  whether\twith the setting  up  of  the  Delhi
\nSpecial Police Establishment, the anti-corruption branch  of
\nthe  Delhi Police had been completely deprived of its  power
\nto investigate into the offences like the present or whether
\nboth the S.P.E. and the anti-corruption branch had power  to
\ninvestigate,  it being a matter of  internal  administrative
\narrangement for the appropriate authorities to regulate\t the
\nassignment  of\tinvestigation  of  cases  according  to\t the
\nexigencies of the situation.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Anthony  relied on the preamble of\t the  Delhi  Special
\nPolice Establishment Act, 25 of 1946.  Mr. Nariman  produced
\nbefore us a copy of its objects and reasons for showing\t the
\nbackground  in\twhich  this Act\t was  enacted.\t Both  sides
\nreferred to the background of this enactment for the purpose
\nof  supporting their rival contentions about its  scope\t and
\neffect.\t The objects and reasons for its enactment show that
\nin  1943 the Government of India had set up ,a police  staff
\ncalled the Delhi Police Establishment (War Department) under
\nthe Special Police Establishment (War Department)  Ordinance
\nNo.  XXII of 1943 for the purpose of investigating  offences
\nof bribery and corruption connected with the Departments  of
\nCentral\t Government.  As this Organisation proved useful  it
\nwas decided to retain its police staff on permanent basis by
\nmeans of legislation.  Ordinance No. XXII of 1943 lapsed  on
\nSeptember   30,\t 1946.\t In  order  to\tavoid  a  break\t  in
\ncontinuity,  Ordinance No. XXII of 1946 was  promulgated  on
\nSeptember  25, 1946 to remain in force till March 25,  1947.
\nThe object of this Act is to retain the said special  police
\nstaff  as a permanent Organisation to enable it to  conduct
\ninvestigation in all provinces of India with their  consent.
\nIts preamble reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “An Act to make provision for the constitution
\n\t      of  a  special police force in Delhi  for\t the
\n\t      investigation of certain offences in the Union
\n\t      territories   for\t the   superintendence\t and
\n\t      administration  of the said force and for\t the
\n\t      extension\t to  other areas of the\t powers\t and
\n\t      jurisdiction  of members of the said force  in
\n\t      regard  to  the  investigation  of  the\tsaid
\n\t      offences.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 3 of the Act on which principal reliance was  placed
\nby Mr. Anthony reads:\n<\/p>\n
483<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “3.  Offences  to be investigated\t by  special
\n\t      police establishment : The Central  Government
\n\t      may, by notification in the Official  Gazette,
\n\t      specify  the offences or classes\tof  offences
\n\t      which  are  to be investigated  by  the  Delhi
\n\t      Special Police Establishment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Reference  to S. 3 of both the Ordinances of 1943  and\t1946
\nwould  show  that apart from the category of  offences,\t the
\npower of the establishment to investigate into the  offences
\nmentioned  therein is expressed in language similar to\tthat
\nused  in  the\t\t two  Acts Section  3  of  the\t1943
\nOrdinance reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  Offences  to be investigated\t by  Special
\n\t      Police Establishment : The Central  Government
\n\t      may  by general or special order\tspecify\t the
\n\t      offences\tor classes of offences committed  in
\n\t      connection  with\tDepartments of\tthe  Central
\n\t      Government which are to be investigated by the
\n\t      Special Police Establishment (War\t Department)
\n\t      or may direct any particular offence committed
\n\t      in connection with a Department of the Central
\n\t      Government to be so investigated.”
\n\t      Section 3 of ;the 1946 Ordinance reads
\n\t      “3.  Offences  to be investigated\t by  special
\n\t      police establishment :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The Central Government may, by notification in
\n\t      the official gazette, specify the offences  or
\n\t      classes  of offences committed  in  connection
\n\t      with  matters  concerning Departments  of\t the
\n\t      Central\t Government   which   are   to\t  be
\n\t      investigated  by\tthe  Delhi  special   police
\n\t      establishment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  was\t contended  that section 3 of this  Act\t confers  on
\nD.S.P.E.   exclusive  jurisdiction  for\t investigating\t the
\noffences specified by the Central Government by notification
\nin  the Gazette.  Stress in this connection was laid on\t the
\nwords  “which  are  to be investigated”\t as  disclosing\t the
\nmandatory  character  of  the  legislative  intention.\t Our
\nattention was also drawn to the notification no.  7\/5\/55-AVD
\ndated  November 6, 1956 in exercise of the powers  conferred
\nby  s. 3 in which offences, inter alia, under S.  161,\t165,
\n165A, I.P.C. and offences punishable under the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act (2 of 1947) are specified.  According to\t the
\nlearned\t Advocate  the\tSpecial\t Establishment\tis  a\tvery
\nefficient investigating agency and it utilises officers\t and
\nnot  clerks  for  assistance in its  investigation.   It  is
\napparently  for this reason, said the learned counsel,\tthat
\ncases of corruption against employees of Central  Government
\nare entrusted to it.  Mr. Anthony in the course of arguments
\nconceded  that\tif  in S. 3 instead of the  word  “are”\t the
\nlegislature had used the words
\n484<\/span>
\n“may” or “can” then the section would not prima facie convey
\na  mandatory direction clothing the D.S.P.E. alone with\t the
\npower  of  investigation  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other
\ninvestigating agencies, including the regular police  force.
\nOur  attention\twas  also drawn to  the\t resolution  of\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia (No. 4\/31\/61-T dated April  1,  1963),
\nreproduced at p. 681 of the Anti-Corruption Laws of India by
\nP. V. Ramakrishna, by means of which it was decided to,\t set
\nup  a  Central\tBureau of Investigation at  Delhi  with\t six
\ndivisions  one of which was described as ‘investigation\t and
\nanti-corruption\t   divisions\t(Delhi\t  Special     Police
\nEstablishment)’.   According to the argument the  Government
\nhad  designed to set up a special investigating\t agency\t for
\ninvestigating  cases  of  corruption  and  bribery  to\t the
\nexclusion of an other investigating agencies.  Our attention
\nwas specifically invited to the letter (No. 593\/AC Br. dated
\nFebruary 10, 1966) from the Superintendent of Police,  Anti-
\nCorruption   Branch,  to  the  appellant  in  reply  to\t  an
\napplication of his.  In that letter it was stated :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Shri L. Swarup, Labour Officer,\tJurisdiction
\n\t      No. 5, C.P.W.D. Delhi is a Central  Government
\n\t      employee.\t  Therefore, Anti-Corruption  Branch
\n\t      of  Delhi Administration is not  competent  to
\n\t      make  enquiry  into the  allegations  levelled
\n\t      against him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  letter  fortifies his submission,\t said  Mr.  Anthony.
\nSupport for his contention was also sought from Abdul  Halim
\nvs.  State of West Bengal(1), Om Prakash vs.  State(2), Labh
\nShankar\t vs. State of Saurashtra (3 ) and Kharaiti  Lal\t vs.
\nState(4).   These decisions do not seem to have\t any  direct
\nbearing on the point which concerns us.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Anthony also produced before us a copy of an  unreported
\ndecision of a single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Kartar
\nSingh vs.  State(5) rejecting a similar contention raised by
\nthe  learned counsel.  But the correctness of this  decision
\nwas  questioned by Mr. Anthony.\t We now proceed\t to  examine
\nthe legal position.\n<\/p>\n
Statement  of objects and reasons for introducing a Bill  in
\nthe  Legislature  is  not  admissible  as  an  aid  to\t the
\nconstruction  of  the statute as enacted : far less  can  it
\ncontrol the meaning of the actual words used in the Act.  It
\ncan  only  be  referred\t to  for  the  limited\tpurpose\t  of
\nascertaining the circumstances which actuated the sponsor of
\nthe  Bill to introduce it and the purpose for doing so.\t The
\npreamble  of a statute which is often described as a key  to
\nthe  understanding  of it may legitimately be  consulted  to
\nsolve
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 257.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1965 Saurashtra 42.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1964 Punjab 407.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  1965 D.L.T. 362.\n<\/p>\n
(5) Crl.  A. No. 42 of 1971 decided on October 13, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
485<\/span><\/p>\n
an ambiguity or to ascertain and fix the meaning of words in
\ntheir  context which otherwise bear more meanings than\tone.
\nIt  may\t afford\t useful assistance as to  what\tthe  statute
\nintends to  reach,  but if the\tenactment,  is\tclear  and
\nunambiguous in itself then no preamble can vary its meaning.
\nWhile construing a statute one has also to bear in mind\t the
\npresumption that the Legislature does not intend to make any
\nsubstantial  alteration in the existing law beyond  what  it
\nexpressly declares or beyond the immediate scope and  object
\nof the statute.\n<\/p>\n
Turning\t to  the D.S.P.E. Act it extends to the,  whole\t of.
\nIndia.\tFor the constitution and powers of the establishment
\nwe have to turn to s. 2 of this Act which reads :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2. Constitution and powers of special  police
\n\t      establishment :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   Notwithstanding  anything in the  Police
\n\t      Act,   1861,   the  Central   Government\t may
\n\t      constitute a special police force to be
\n\t      called the Delhi Special Police  Establishment
\n\t      for  the investigation in any Union  territory
\n\t      of offences notified under section 3.
\n\t      (2)   Subject to any orders which the  Central
\n\t      Government may make in this behalf, members of
\n\t      the  said\t police\t establishment\tshall\thave
\n\t      throughout any Union territory in relation  to
\n\t      the investigation of such offences and  arrest
\n\t      of persons concerned in such offences, all the
\n\t      powers,  duties,\tprivileges  and\t liabilities
\n\t      which police officers of that Union  territory
\n\t      have  in connection with the investigation  of
\n\t      offences committed therein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Any\t  member   of\tthe   said    police
\n\t      establishment  of\t or above the rank  of\tSub-
\n\t      Inspector may, subject to any orders which the
\n\t      Central  Government may make in  this  behalf,
\n\t      exercise\tin  any Union territory any  of\t the
\n\t      powers  of the officer in charge of  a  police
\n\t      station  in  the area in which he is  for\t the
\n\t      time being and when so exercising such  powers
\n\t      shall,   subject\t to  any  such\t orders\t  as
\n\t      aforesaid,  be  deemed  to be  an\t officer  in
\n\t      charge  of  a police station  discharging\t the
\n\t      functions of such an officer within the limits
\n\t      of his station.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 3 which empowers the Central Government to  specify
\nthe offences to be investigated by the D.S.P.E. has  already
\nbeen  set  out.\t  The notification dated  November  6,\t1956
\nreferred  to  earlier  specifies  numerous  offences   under
\nvarious\t enactments  including a large\tnumber\tof  ordinary
\noffences   under   I.P.C.  Clauses  (a)\t to  (J)   of\tthis
\nnotification take within their fold offences under a  number
\nof statutes specified therein.\tClause (k) extends the sweep
\nof this notification by including in its scope attempts,
\n486<\/span>
\nabetments  and conspiracies in relation to or in  connection
\nwith the offences mentioned in cll. (a) to (h) and also\t any
\nother offence committed in the course of those, transactions
\narising\t out of the same facts.\t It may also be stated\tthat
\nafter 1956 in a number of further notifications the list  of
\nthe  offences specified under s. “I has increased  manifold.
\nWe  consider  it  unnecessary to refer to  them\t in  detail.
\nAccording  to s. 4 the superintendence of D.S.P.E. vests  in
\nthe  Central  Government  and  s.  5  empowers\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  to\textend to any area in a State  not  being  a
\nUnion  territory the powers and jurisdiction of\t members  of
\nthis establishment for the investigation of any offences  or
\nclasses\t of  offences specified under s. 3. Subject  to\t the
\norders\tof  the\t Central  Government  the  members  of\tsuch
\nEstablishment\texercising   such   extended   powers\t and
\njurisdiction  are to be deemed to be members of\t the  police
\nforce  of  that area for the purpose of\t powers,  functions,
\nprivileges and liabilities.  But the power and\tjurisdiction
\nof  a  member of D.S.P.E. in such State is to  be  exercised
\nonly  with  the\t consent :of the  Government  of  the  State
\nconcerned.  The scheme of this Act does not either expressly
\nor  by\tnecessary  implication\tdivest\tthe  regular  police
\nauthorities  of their jurisdiction, power and competence  to
\ninvestigate into offences under any other competent law.  As
\na general, rule, it would require clear and express language
\nto  effectively\t exclude  as a matter of law  the  power  of
\ninvestigation\tof  all\t the  offences\tmentioned  in\tthis
\nnotification  from  the jurisdiction and competence  of\t the
\nregular\t police authorities conferred on them by  Cr.\tP.C.
\nand  other  laws and to vest this power exclusively  in\t the
\nD.S.P.E. The D.S.P.E. Act seems to be only permissive or em-
\npowering,  intended  merely to enable the D.S.P.E.  also  to
\ninvestigate  into the offences specified as contemplated  by
\ns. 3 without impairing any other law empowering the  regular
\npolice authorities to investigate offences.
\nTurning now to the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947),
\nwe  find  that this Act was enacted in March,  1947  several
\nmonths after the enactment of the D.S.P.E. Act for the\tmore
\neffective  prevention of brivery and corruption.  By  virtue
\nof s. 3 of the Act an offence under s. 165A, I.P.C. was made
\na   cognizable\toffence\t for  the  purposes  of\t Cr. P.C.
\nnotwithstanding\t anything to the contrary contained in\tthat
\nCode.  Section 4 provides for presumptions in certain cases.
\nSection 5 defines criminal misconduct and also provides\t for
\npunishment  for\t such  offences.  It  further  provides\t for
\npunishment  for\t habitual commission of offences  under\t ss.
\n162,  163  and\t165, I.P.C. and\t also  renderers  punishable
\nattempts  to commit some offences.  Section 5  is  expressly
\nstated\tto operate in addition to, and not in derogation  of
\nother  laws.  Section 5A which is of importance may here  be
\nset out :\n<\/p>\n
“5A.  Investigation into cases under this Act
\n487<\/span>
\n\t      (1)   Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t      the  Code\t of  Criminal  Procedure,  1898,  no
\n\t      police officer below the rank,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   in the case of the Delhi Special  Police
\n\t      Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   in the presidency-towns of Calcutta\t and
\n\t      Madras,\tof  an\tAssistant  Commissioner\t  of
\n\t      Police;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   in\tthe presidency-town of Bombay, of  a
\n\t      Superintendent  of Police; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)     elsewhere, of a Deputy  Superintendent
\n\t      of  Police,  shall  investigate  any   offence
\n\t      punishable  under section 161, section 165  or
\n\t      section 165A of the Indian Penal Code or under
\n\t      section  5 of this Act without the order of  a
\n\t      Presidency  Magistrate or a Magistrate of\t the
\n\t      first  class, as the case may be, or make\t any
\n\t      arrest therefore without a warrant :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat if a police officer  not  below
\n\t      the   rank  of  an  Inspector  of\t Police\t  is
\n\t      authorised  by the: State Government  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf  by  general or special order,  he\t may
\n\t      also investigate any such offence: without the
\n\t      order   of  a  Presidency\t Magistrate   or   a
\n\t      Magistrate of the first class, as the case may
\n\t      be, or make arrest therefore without a warrant
\n\t      Provided\tfurther that an offence referred  to
\n\t      in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section  5
\n\t      shall  not be investigated without the,  order
\n\t      of  a police officer not below the rank  of  a
\n\t      Superintendent of Police.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   If,\t  from\t information   received\t  or
\n\t      otherwise,  a  police officer has\t reason\t to,
\n\t      suspect the commission of an offence which  he
\n\t      is empowered to investigate, under  subsection
\n\t      (1)  and\tconsiders that for  the\t purpose  of
\n\t      investigation or inquiry into such offence, it
\n\t      is  necessary to inspect any  bankers’  books,
\n\t      then,  notwithstanding anything  contained  in
\n\t      any  law for the time being in force,  he\t may
\n\t      inspect  any bankers’ books in so far as\tthey
\n\t      relate to the accounts of the person suspected
\n\t      to have committed that offence or of any other
\n\t      person suspected to be holding money on behalf
\n\t      of such person, and take or cause to be  taken
\n\t      certified\t copies\t of  the  relevant   entries
\n\t      therefrom\t and  the bank\tconcerned  shall  be
\n\t      bound  to\t assist the police  officer  in\t the
\n\t      exercise of his powers under this\t sub-section
\n\t      :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided that no power under this\t sub-section
\n\t      in  relation  to the accounts  of\t any  person
\n\t      shall be exercised
\n\t      488<\/span>
\n\t      by  a  police  officer below  the\t rank  of  a
\n\t      Superintendent   of  Police,  unless   he\t  is
\n\t      specially\t authorised  in\t this  behalf  by  a
\n\t      police  officer  of  or above the\t rank  of  a
\n\t      Superintendent of Police.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Explanation.-In\t this\t sub-section,\t the
\n\t      expressions  ‘bank and ‘bankers’ books’  shall
\n\t      have  the\t meanings assigned to  them  in\t the
\n\t      Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891.”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section  (1)  of  this  section,  while  regulating\t the
\ncompetence  of\tthe  officers both of D.S.P.E.\tand  of\t the
\nregular\t police force to investigate offences to the  extent
\nconsidered necessary, over-rides the provisions of Cr.\tP.C.
\nIt  expressly prohibits police officers, including those  of
\nthe  D.S.P.E., below certain ranks, from investigating\tinto
\noffences, under ss. 161, 165 and 165A, I.P.C. and under s. 5
\nof   Prevention\t of  Corruption\t Act,  without\t orders\t  of
\nMagistrates specified therein and from effecting arrests for
\nthose offences without a warrant.  The plain meaning of this
\nsub-section  appears  to be that Inspectors  of\t Police,  of
\nD.S.P.E. In all places, Assistant Commissioners of Police in
\nthe Presidency Towns of Calcutta and Madras, Superintendents
\nof  Police  in\tthe Presidency Town of\tBombay,\t and  Deputy
\nSuperintendents\t  of  Police  in  all  places,\tother\tthan
\nPresidency  Towns  of  Calcutta,  Madras  and  Bombay,\t are
\nauthorised  to\tinvestigate  into  the\toffences   mentioned
\ntherein.  The word “elsewhere” in cl. (d) does not indicate,
\nas was contended by Mr. Anthony that a Deputy Superintendent
\nof Police is debarred from investigating offences  mentioned
\nin  this clause even when so ordered by a Magistrate of\t the
\nFirst Class in the areas in which D.S.P.E. is also empowered
\nto function.  The word “elsewhere” in cl. (d) appears to  us
\nto  refer  only to the three Presidency towns  mentioned  in
\ncll.  (b)  and (c).  This sub-section, therefore,  does\t not
\nconfer\tsole  power  on D.S.P.E.  to  investigate  into\t the
\noffences mentioned therein to the complete exclusion of\t the
\nregular\t police\t force.\t  It is merely\tconcerned  with\t the
\nobject\t of  making  provision\tfor   safeguarding   against
\narbitrary  use of Dower of investigation by  officers  below
\ncertain\t ranks, so that public servants concerned are  saved
\nfrom  frivolous harassment at the hands of disgruntled\tper-
\nsons.\tIn this connection it is also noteworthy that  apart
\nfrom the restriction contained in s. 5A(1) the applicability
\nof  the\t provisions  of Cr.  P.C.  to  the proceedings\tin
\nrelation  to the aforesaid offences is, subject\t to  certain
\nmodifications contained in s. 7A, expressly recognised.\t The
\nschemes\t of the two enactments, namely, the D.\tS.P.E.\tAct.
\n1946  and  the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1947.  suggest
\nthat they are intended to serve as supplementary  provisions
\nof  law\t designed to function harmoniously in  and  of\teach
\nother  and  of\tthe exciting  regular  police  investigating
\nagencies for effectively achieving the object of  successful
\ninvestigation into the
\n489<\/span>
\nserious\t offences  mentioned in s. 5A  without\tunreasonably
\nexposing  the  public  servant concerned  to  frivolous\t and
\nvexatious proceedings.\tMr. Nariman also, drew our attention
\nto  D.O. No. 21\/8\/63GD dated October 5, 1963,  addressed  by
\nthe  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation,  Ministry  of\tHome
\nAffairs,  Government of India to the Inspectors\t General  of
\nPolice\tinviting their attention to the Government of  India
\nResolution  No. 4\/31\/61-T dated April 1,  1963\testablishing
\nthe  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation\t consisting  of\t six
\nDivisions to assist the State Police Forces.  The  authority
\nof  Central  Bureau is stated therein to have  been  derived
\nfrom the D.S.P.E. Act.\tIn this letter para 6 reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “6.   In\tthis  connection  it  may  also\t  be
\n\t      mentioned\t that, on account of  inadequacy  of
\n\t      staff,  it  is  not possible  for\t the  S.P.E.
\n\t      Division\tto  take up every one of  the  cases
\n\t      which   might   fall  under   the\t  categories
\n\t      mentioned in the Annexure to the Government of
\n\t      India Resolution and which might be considered
\n\t      suitable\tfor  investigation  by\tthe   S.P.E.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Division.\t    A\tcertain\t  discretion\thas,
\n\t      therefore, to be exercised in taking up  cases
\n\t      for  investigation.  In some instances it\t may
\n\t      not  be possible for it to take up even  those
\n\t      cases   which   are   committed\tby   Central
\n\t      Government  servants,  e.g.,  petty  cases  of
\n\t      theft, misappropriation, cheating.  Such cases
\n\t      could  be\t dealt\twith more  easily  and\tmore
\n\t      expeditiously  by the local police  which\t has
\n\t      concurrent   jurisdiction\t over  these   cases
\n\t      also.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In para 7 it is stated that for successful investigation  of
\ncases  it is most essential that a quick decision  is  taken
\nabout the Agency which has to investigate them.\t One of\t the
\nAgencies mentioned therein is S.P.E. Division of the  C.B.I.
\nIn  para 8 it is stated that in respect of  cases  involving
\nPublic\t Servants   or\t Public\t  Concerns   there   is\t  an
\nadministrative\tarrangement  and understanding\tbetween\t the
\nS.P.E.\tand the State Police about the manner in which\tthey
\nare to be dealt with so as to avoid difficulties and delays.
\nThis para then refers to the existing procedure and practice
\nwhich,\tit  is\tsuggested, should continue to  be  valid  in
\nfuture.\t No doubt, this letter contains only  administrative
\ninstructions  but it clearly shows the\tconstruction  placed
\nduring\tall  these  years  by  the  administrative  officers
\nconcerned  with administering this law on the provisions  of
\nthe  S.P.E.  and the Prevention of Corruption Act.   If\t the
\nviews  stated  in  this letter is not  clearly\tagainst\t the
\nlanguage and scheme of these Acts then it is entitled to due
\nconsideration and has some Persuasive value.. The contention
\nraised by Mr. Anthony that Delhi not being a State but\tonly
\na  Union  territory, the directions contained  in  D.O.\t No.
\n21\/8\/63-GD  are, inapplicable and that in Delhi it  is\tonly
\nthe  D.S.P.E. which has exclusive authority  to\t investigate
\ninto the offences mentioned in s. 5A is not easy to accept.\n<\/p>\n
490<\/span><\/p>\n
Reference to the State Police force in that D.O. in our view
\nincludes the police force of the Union territory of Delhi.
\nAs  the foregoing discussion shows the investigation in\t the
\npresent\t case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police  cannot
\nbe  considered to be in any way unauthorised or contrary  to
\nlaw.  In this connection it may not be out of place also  to
\npoint  out that the function of investigation is  merely  to
\ncollect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality  in
\nthe  course  of\t collection of\tevidence,  can\tscarcely  be
\nconsidered by itself to affect the legality of the trial  by
\nan otherwise competent court of the offence so investigated.
\nIn H.\t  N. Rishabud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi(1)  it
\nwas held that an    illegality\tcommitted in the  course  of
\ninvestigation\tdoes   not   affect   the   competence\t and
\njurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance  of
\nthe  case has in fact been taken and the case has  proceeded
\nto termination the invalidity of the preceding investigation
\ndoes  not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of  justice,
\nhas  been caused thereby.  When any breach of the  mandatory
\nprovisions  relating  to  investigation is  brought  to\t the
\nnotice\tof  the court at an ,early stage of  the  trial\t the
\ncourt  will  have to consider the nature and extent  of\t the
\nviolation   and\t  pass\t appropriate   orders\tfor    such.
\nreinvestigation as may be called for, wholly or partly,\t and
\nby such officer as it consider appropriate with reference to
\nthe  requirements of s. 5A of the Prevention  of  Corruption
\nAct,  1952.  This decision was followed in Munna Lal v.\t The
\nState  of  U.P.<\/a> (2) where the decision in  State  of  Madhya
\nPradesh v. Mubarak Ali<\/a>(3) was distinguished.  The same\tview
\nwas,  taken in the Slate of Andhra Pradesh v.  M.  Venugopal<\/a>
\n(4)  and  more\trecently in Khandu Sonu Dhobi  v.  State  of
\nMaharashtra<\/a>(5).\t  The decisions of the Calcutta, Punjab\t and
\nSaurashtra High Courts relied upon by Mr. Anthony deal\twith
\ndifferent  points : in any event to the extent they  contain
\nany observations against the view expressed by this Court in
\nthe  decision  just  cited  those  observations\t cannot\t  be
\nconsidered good law.\n<\/p>\n
This  takes  us\t to the merits of  the\tcase.\tMr.  Anthony
\nreferred  us to the evidence of Bakht Ram,  the\t complainant
\n(P.W.  1) and submitted that this witness has told  lies  in
\nthe  witness  box.  P.W. 4 D.C. Srivastava who\twas  also  a
\nparty  to  the\ttrap  and appeared  as\ta.  witness  to\t the
\nacceptance  of the bribe was also subjected to criticism  by
\nthe  learned  counsel.\t According  to\tthis  criticism\t his
\nevidence  is equally untrustworthy.  It was emphasised\tthat
\nthe   prosecution   witnesses\twere  tied   down   by\t the
\nInvestigating  Agency  by taking their statements  under  S.
\n164, Cr.  P.C. The learned counsel submitted that resort  to
\ns.  164,  Cr.\tP.C. must put the  court  on  guard  against
\nimplicit reliance on such evidence because resort
\n(1)  [1955] 1 S.C.R  to\t (2) Crl.  A. Nos. 102-104  of\t1961
\nd\/April 17,1963.\n<\/p>\n
(3) A  I.  R   1959    S.C. 707\t (4)  [1964] 3 S.C.R. 742.
\n(5)  Crl.  A. No. 105 of 1969 d\/February 15, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    491<\/span><\/p>\n
this section suggests that the witnesses are being compelled
\nto   back  to  the  statement  secured\tfrom   them   during
\ninvestigation.\t The counsel further drew our  attention  to
\nthe  defence version which, According to him, was put  forth
\nat  the\t earliest opportunity.\tThis version,  according  to
\nhim,  should  have been accepted.  The story  of  demand  of
\nbribe  by  the\tappellant,  argued  Mr.\t Anthony,  was\t not
\ntrustworthy.   Finally, it was pointed out that Wazir  Chand
\nwho  was stated to be present when the appellant is  alleged
\nto have demanded the bribe should have been produced by\t the
\nprosecution  and failure to do so has  seriously  prejudiced
\nthe  appellant’s case.\tThe plea that he had been  won\tover
\nand  was. therefore, not produced, did not justify his\tnon-
\nproduction.   The  counsel also drew our  attention  to\t the
\nevidence of the three witnesses produced in defence.
\nIn  the\t High Court all these contentions  were\t raised\t and
\nafter a detailed consideration repelled for reasons which we
\nthink are sound.  The appellant had in the present case,  as
\nobserved by the High Court, admitted receipt of Rs. 30\tfrom
\nP.W.  1 on the date of the offence and his  explanation\t was
\nconsidered  to\tbe unconvincing.  The defence  evidence\t was
\nalso  considered  by the High Court to be  unimpressive\t and
\nunacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, it is not possible to find any infirmity in the
\njudgment  of the High Court upholding the prosecution  story
\nand  convicting\t the appellant and indeed we are  unable  to
\nfind  any cogent ground for re-appraising the  evidence\t for
\nourselves   in\t this  appeal.\t There\tis   absolutely\t  no
\nextraordinary  reason for departing from the normal rule  of
\npractice   according  to  which\t this  Court   accepts\t the
\nconclusions  of\t facts arrived at by the High  Court  to  be
\nfinal.\t There\tis  no grave injustice as a  result  of\t any
\nirregularity  or other infirmity either in the trial  or  in
\nthe judgments of the trial court and the High Court.
\nThe  result,  therefore,  is that the appeal  fails  and  is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n16- L796SCI\/73\n492<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 913, 1973 SCR (3) 477 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: A. C. SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1973 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. CITATION: 1973 AIR 913 1973 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1973-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-19T21:32:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-19T21:32:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973\"},\"wordCount\":5491,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973\",\"name\":\"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-19T21:32:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-19T21:32:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973","datePublished":"1973-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-19T21:32:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973"},"wordCount":5491,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973","name":"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-19T21:32:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-sharma-vs-delhi-administration-on-5-february-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration on 5 February, 1973"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}