Din Dayal Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Case Analysis

Din Dayal Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

May 26, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Din Dayal Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1959] Supp. (2) S.C.R. 776, addressed crucial questions concerning procedural irregularities and jurisdiction in trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant, convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, challenged the trial process on grounds including improper investigation and lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The judgment clarified that a defect in investigation by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police would not vitiate the trial unless raised at the earliest stage. It further held that the Assistant Sessions Judge retained jurisdiction to try cases committed to the Sessions Court before the enactment of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, which introduced Special Judges. This ruling reaffirmed judicial precedence in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi and Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The State. The judgment is a seminal exposition on procedural technicalities, evidentiary requirements under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the sanctity of concurrent factual findings in appellate scrutiny.

Keywords: Prevention of Corruption Act, Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge, Illegal Gratification, Defective Investigation, Section 161 IPC

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Din Dayal Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1957

iii) Judgement Date: 23 April 1959

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justices J.L. Kapur and Jafar Imam

vi) Author: Justice Jafar Imam

vii) Citation: [1959] Supp. (2) S.C.R. 776

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None mentioned

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Anti-Corruption Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose from an appeal against the conviction of the appellant for receiving a bribe in relation to his duties as a clerk in a government office. After the commencement of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, Special Judges were empowered to try cases of corruption. The appellant contended that post-enactment, his trial should have been held by a Special Judge, not by an Assistant Sessions Judge. He further challenged the legality of the investigation, conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, citing violation of Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The court was required to interpret the transitionary provisions of the 1952 Act and assess whether procedural irregularities undermined the fairness of trial.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Din Dayal Sharma, worked as a clerk in the District Relief and Rehabilitation Office at Meerut. One Malekchand approached him seeking allotment of a house. The appellant allegedly demanded and received Rs. 20 as illegal gratification for facilitating the allotment. He was consequently charged under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The investigation was conducted by a police officer below the rank prescribed under Section 5-A of the Act. The trial court found him guilty, and his conviction was upheld by the Allahabad High Court. He then filed a criminal appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court, raising key procedural and substantive challenges.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the trial was vitiated due to investigation by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?

ii) Whether the Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the case post the enactment of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952?

iii) Whether the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was correctly applied?

iv) Whether the conviction could be upheld despite delay in raising the objection of defective investigation?

v) Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive considering the lapse of time since the incident?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the investigation was conducted by an officer not authorised under Section 5-A, hence violating mandatory procedural norms. They relied on the precedent in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1150, to argue that any breach of a mandatory provision should lead to a fresh investigation or retrial if the court is informed in time[1].

They also argued that since the trial commenced after the 1952 Act came into force, it should have been conducted by a Special Judge. Hence, the jurisdiction exercised by the Assistant Sessions Judge was irregular and rendered the proceedings void ab initio[2].

The appellant further contended that the courts below failed to correctly apply the presumption under Section 4 of the Act and did not appreciate that no sufficient evidence existed for proving that the Rs. 20/- was received as a bribe. They argued the money was allegedly received to buy wheat for the complainant and not for any corrupt purpose, and hence the presumption of guilt could not be drawn[3].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the objection to the investigation’s legality came at a belated stage and had not been raised before the Sessions Court or the High Court in an appropriate manner. Citing H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, they emphasized that irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the trial unless raised early and prejudice is shown[4].

They further argued that since the case had already been committed to the Sessions Court before the 1952 Amendment Act came into effect, the provisions transferring cases to Special Judges did not apply. This position had already been settled in Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The State, [1957] S.C.R. 678, where it was held that Section 10 of the Act applies only to cases pending before Magistrates, not those already committed[5].

Regarding the evidentiary burden, they asserted that concurrent findings by two courts below affirmed the factual premise that the appellant demanded and received the bribe for house allotment. The burden under Section 4 of the Act had been rightly shifted, and the defense version lacked credibility[6].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Punishment for criminal misconduct.

ii) Section 5-A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Restriction on investigation by officers below Deputy Superintendent of Police.

iii) Section 161, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.

iv) Section 10, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 – Transfer of pending cases to Special Judges.

v) Section 4, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Presumption where public servant accepts gratification.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that investigation by a lower-ranking officer does not automatically vitiate the trial. The objection was not raised at the trial’s earliest stages, hence it could not be considered now. The Court applied the reasoning in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, which recognized that procedural irregularities do not nullify trials unless prejudice is demonstrated or objection raised promptly[7].

ii) It further ruled that the Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction. The case had already been committed to Sessions Court when the 1952 Amendment came into effect. Therefore, as clarified in Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The State, Section 10 did not apply to such committed cases, and there was no procedural illegality in the trial court exercising jurisdiction[8].

iii) The Court upheld the factual finding that the appellant had accepted a bribe and rejected the defence plea regarding wheat procurement. Since the courts below made concurrent findings and the evidence supported prosecution claims, there was no reason to disturb the conviction.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court observed that procedural defects in investigation must be addressed at an early stage. Failing this, courts cannot entertain such objections at appellate stages unless manifest prejudice is shown.

c. GUIDELINES

An objection regarding improper investigation under Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be raised at the earliest possible stage.
A procedural irregularity in investigation does not invalidate the conviction unless it results in prejudice.
Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 does not apply to cases already committed to Sessions Court before the Act’s commencement.
The presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be drawn upon factual findings that support illegal gratification.
Delay in raising procedural objections can lead to waiver of the right to contest them on appeal.