R.A.H. SIGURANversusSHANKARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA & ANR.

                          [2017] 7 S.C.R. 754



A                          R.A.H. SIGURAN
                                  v.
           SHANKARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA & ANR.
                    (Crimina1Appea1No.1439of 2017)
B                          AUGUST 18, 2017
     [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.I

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Case against
  respondent no.l was that he procured minor girls and sent them for
C prostitution through co-accused - Quashing of the proceedings
  against respondent no.l sought on the ground that Investigating
  officer who conducted the investigation was not authorised to do
  so under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Held: It is well
  settled that even if investigation is not conducted by authorised
D officer. the trial is not vitiated unless prejudice is shown - High
  Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings merely on the
  ground that the investigation was not valid - Trial court is directed
  to proceed with the matter in accordance with law - Immoral Traffic
  (Prevention) Act, 1956.
E         H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC
          196: [1955) 1 SCR 1150; Union of India and Ors
          represented through Superintendent of Police v. T.
          Nathamuni (2014) 16 SCC 285:1 20141 12 SCR 297 -
          relied on.
F         Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh AIR 1962 SC 63 :
          (1962) 2 SCR 694 - referred to.
                           Case Law Reference
          [19621 2 SCR 694         referred to            Para6
          [1955) 1 SCR 1150        relied on              Para 10
G
          (2014] 12 SCR 297        relied on              Para 12


         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No.1439 of2017.
H
                                  754
   R.A.H. SIGURAN v. SHANKARE GOWDA@ SHANKARA                                   755
                        &ANR.

       From th\: final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2016 passed by            A
 the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.5330/
 2015.
       A. Philips, Ms. Lityi M. Noshi, Ms. Arnita Singh Kalka!, Advs. for
 the Appellant.
      Anil V. Katarki, Anil C. Nishani, T.R.B. Sivakumar, V.N.                  B
 Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondents.
        The following Order of the Court was delivered:
                               ORDER
        1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.                C
       2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court was
justified in quashing the proceedings against Respondent No.1 on the
ground that Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation was
not authorized to do so under the provisions of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act).                                               D
         3. The case of the prosecution is that a raid was conducted on the
  night of 27th August, 2010 in a lodge and it was found that.Respondent
  No.1 had procured minor girls and sent them for prostitution through his
  co-accused. He was indulging in prostitution with the aid of co-accused.
· After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8   E
  and 9 of the Act read with Sections 366A; 372 IPC read with Section 34
  IPC on 20th August, 2011.
       4. The Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The
 charges were framed on 23rd April, 2015.
       5. The prosecution examined PW-1 on 14th July, 2015 but the              F
 cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred at the request of Respondent
 No.l.
       6. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section
 482 Cr.PC before the High Court on the ground that Investigating Officer
 was not competent to investigate. He was not a Special Police Officer          G
 covered by notification issued by the Government of Karnataka under
 the Act. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Delhi
 Administration versus Ram Singh1·
 '(1962) 2 SCR 694, AIR 1962 SC 63
                                                                                H
756             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A           7. The High Court allowed the.petition as follows:-
            " 14. The investigation since not steered by Special Officer
            appointed by Section 13 of the Act is illegal and vitiated, though
            the trial has already begun, having noticed the basic infirmity
            allowing the proceedings to continue any more is abuse of the
B           process of the Court itself. On that count, the petition is liable to
            be quashed under the jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

              The petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in S.C.No.
            219/2013 pending on the file ofVIIIAdditional District and Sessions
            Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengal um, is hereby quashed."
c
             8. No doubt, this Court in Ram Singh (supra) held by majority
      that the Act was a complete code and certain provisions of the Act
      could not be complied with by the regular police. Arrest without warrant
      may be made only by Special Police Officer under the proviso to Section
      14 of the Act and not by a regular police. Search without a warrant can
D
      also be done only by a Special Police Officer. Thus, only a Special Police
      Officer could conduct the investigation.

            9. However, this conclusion was not enough for the High Court to
      quash the proceedings. It is well settled law that even if investigation is
 E    not conducted by authorized officer, the trial is not initiated unless a
      prejudice is shown.

              10. In H.N. Rishbud and Anr. versus State of Delhi2 the
      question considered by this Court was whether after the court takes
      cognizance, trial can be held to be initiated merely on the ground that
 F    investigation was invalid. Answering in the negative, this Court held that
      if the plea ofinvalidity of investigation is raised at sufficiently early stage,
      the court, instead of taking cognizance direct reinvestigation by competent
      investigating officer. But, after cognizance is taken the trial cannot be
      quashed for invalidity ofinvestigation.

 G           11. The observations in the said judgment are:-

             "9. The question then requires to be considered whether and to
             what extent the trial which follows such investigation is vitiated.
      2AIR 1955 SC 196, (1955) I SCR 1150


 H
R.A.H. SIGURAN v. SHANK.ARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA                           757
                     &ANR.

  Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by A
  investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in
  respect of cognizable cases. But it does not necessarily follow
  that an invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based
  thereon. Here we are not concerned with the effect of the breach
  of a mandatory provision regulating the competence or procedure
                                                                         B
  of the Court as regards cognizance or trial. It is only with reference
  to such a breach that the question as to whether it constitutes an
  illegality vitiating the proceedings or a mere irregularity arises. A
  defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct
  bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance
  or trial. No doubt a police report which results from an investigation c
  is provided in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as
  the material on which cognizance is taken. But it cannot be
  maintained that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of
  the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. Section 190 of
  the Code of Criminal Proi:i:dure is one out of a group of sections
                                                                         D
  under the heading "Conditions requisite for initiation of
  proceedings". The language of this section is in marked contrast
  with that of the other sections of the group under the same heading
  i.e. Sections 193 and 195 to 199. These latter sections regulate
  the competence of the Court and bar its jurisdiction in certain
  cases excepting in compliance therewith. But Section 190 does E
  not. While no doubt, in one sense, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section
  190(1) are conditions requisite for taking of cognizance, it is not
  possible to say that cognizance on an invalid police report is
  prohibited and is therefore a nullity. Such an invalid report may
  still fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 190(1), (whether
  it is the one or the other we need not pause to consider) and in
                                                                         F
  any case cognizance so taken is only in the nature of error in a
  proceeding antecedent to the trial. To such a situation Section 537
  of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is in the following terms
  is attracted:
                                                                         G
      "Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding,
      sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction
      shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account
      of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons,

                                                                       H
758      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2017] 7 S.C.R.


A        warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment' or other
         proceedings before or during trial or in any enquiry or other
         proceedings under this Code, unless such error, omission or
         irregularity, has in fact occasioned a failure of justice."
      If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report
B     vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to
      investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the
      trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality
      in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a
      miscarriage of justice. That an illegality committed in the course
      ofinvestigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction
      of the Court for trial is well settled as appears from the cases in
      Prabhu v. Emperor (AIR 1944 PC 73) and Lumbhardar
      Zutshi v. King (AIR 1950 PC 26). These no doubt relate to the
      illegality of arrest in the course of investigation while we are
      concerned in the present cases with the illegality with reference
 D    to the machinery for the collection of the evidence. This distinction
       may have a bearing on the question of prejudice or miscarriage of
      justice, but both the cases clearly show that invalidity of the
       investigation has no relation to the competence of the Court. We
       are, therefore, clearly, also, of the opinion that where the
       cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has
 E
       proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent
       investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage ofjustice
       has been caused thereby.

      l 0. It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of the
      investigation is to be completely ignored by the Court during trial.
 F
      When the breach of such a mandatory provision is brought to the
      knowledge of the Court at a sufficiently early stage, the Court,
      while not declining cognizance, will have to take the necessary
      steps to get the illegality cured and the defect rectified, by ordering
      such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual case
 G    may call for. Such a course is not altogether outside the
      contemplation of the scheme of the Code as appears from Section
      202 under which a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint
      can order investigation by the police. Nor can it be said that the


 H
R.A.H. SIGURAN v. SHANKARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA                               759
                     &ANR.

  adoption of such a course is outside the scope of the inherent A
  powers of the Special Judge, who for purposes of procedure at
  the trial is virtually in the position ofa Magistrate trying a warrant
  case. When the attention of the Court is called to such an illegality
  at a very early stage it would not be fair to the accused not to
  obviate the prejudice that may have been caused thereby, by B
  appropriate orders, at that stage butto leave him to the ultimate
  remedy of waiting till the conclusion of the trial and of discharging
  the somewhat difficult burden under Section 537 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure of making out that such an error has in fact
  occasioned a failure of justice. It is relevant in this context to
  observe that even if the trial had proceeded to conclusion and the C
  accused had to make out that there was in fact a failure ofjustice
  as the result of such an error, explanation to Section 537 of the
  Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the fact of the objection
  having been raised at an early stage of the proceeding is a pertinent
  factor. To ignore the breach in such a situation when brought to D
  the notice of the Court would be virtually to make a dead letter of
  the peremptory provision which has been enacted on grounds of
  public policy for the benefit of such an accused. It is true that the
  peremptory provision itself allows an officer of a lower rank to
  make the investigation if permitted by the Magistrate. But this is
  not any indication by the Legislature that an investigation by an E
  officer of a lower rank without such permission cannot be said to
  cause prejudice. When a Magistrate is approached for granting
  such permission he is expected to satisfy himself that there are
  good and sufficient reasons for authorising an officer of a lower
  rank to conduct the investigation. The granting of such permission
  is not to be treated by a Magistrate as a mere matter of routine
                                                                            F
  but it is an exercise of his judicial discretion having regard to the
  policy underlying it. In our opinion, therefore, when such a breach
  is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial
  the Court have to consider the nature and extent of the violation
  and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as may be . G
  called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers
  appropriate with reference to the requirements of Section 5-A of
  the Act. It is in the light of the above considerations that the validity


                                                                           H
760            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A           or otherwise of the objection as to the violation of Section 5(4) of
            the Act has to be decided and the course to be adopted in these
            proceedings, determined."                    (emphasis added)

             12. The above view has been repeatedly followed in subsequent
      decisions of this Court. In Union of India and ors. represented
B     through Superintendent of Police versus T. NathamunP· the
      position was discussed as follows:-

            "12. It is clear that in the case of investigation under the Delhi
            Special Police Establishment Act, an officer below the rank of
            Inspector cannot investigate without the order of a competent
c           Magistrate. In the present case, order of the Special Judge was
            obtained by filing an application. That order dated 24-9-2009 shows
            that it was passed on request and in the interest of justice,
            investigation pursuant to such order did not suffer from want of
            jurisdiction and hence, in the facts of the case, the High Court
b           erred in law in interfering with such investigation more so when it
            was already completed.

            13. The question raised by the respondent is well answered by
            this Court in a number of decisions rendered in a different
            perspective. The matter of investigation by an officer not authorised
E           by law has been held to be irregular. Indisputably, by the order of
            the Magistrate investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector,
            CBI who, after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-
            sheet. It was only during the trial, objection was raised by the
            respondent that the order passed by the Magistrate permitting the
 F          Sub-Inspector, CBI to investigate is without jurisdiction.
            Consequently, the investigation conducted by the officer is vitiated
            in law. Curiously enough the respondent has not made out a case
            that by reason of investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector a
            serious prejudice and miscarriage ofjustice has been caused. It is
            well settled that invalidity of the investigation does not vitiate the
 G          result unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.

            14. In M.C. Sulkunte v. State of Mysore [(1970) 3 SCC 513],
            the main question raised by the appellant in an appeal against the

      '(2014) 16 sec 2ss
 H
R.A.H. SIGURAN v. SHANKARE GOWDA@ SHANKARA                                   761
                     &ANR.

  order of conviction was that the sanction to investigate the offence       A
  given by the Magistrate was not proper inasmuch as he had not
  recorded any reason as to why he had given permission to the
  Inspector of Police to investigate the offence of criminal
  misconduct of obtaining illegal gratification. Considering Section
  5-A of the Act, Their Lordships observed: (SCC p. 517, para 15)
                                                                             B
     "15. Although laying the trap was part of the investigation and
     it had been done by a police officer below the rank of a Deputy
     Superintendent of Police, it cannot on that ground be held that
     the sanction was invalid or that the conviction ought not to be
     maintained on that ground. It has been emphasised in a number           c
     of decisions of this Court that to set aside a conviction it must
     be shown that there has been miscarriage ofjustice as a result
     of ai i rregul a- i nvesti gati on. The observations in State of M.P.
     v. Mubarak Ali [ 1959 Supp (2) SCR 201 ], at pp. 210-11 to
     the effect that when the Magistrate without applying his mind
     only mechanically issues the order giving permission the                D
     investigation is tainted cannot help the appellant before us."

  15. ln Muni Lal v. Delhi Admn [(1971) 2 SCC 48], this Court
  was considering the question with regard to the irregularity in
  investigation for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption           E
  Act. Following earlier decisions, this Court held: (SCC p. 52, para
  14)

     "1'4. From the above proposition it follows that where
     cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case
     has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the preceding F
     investigation will not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of
     justice has been caused thereby and the accused has been
     prejudiced. Assuming in favour of the appellant, that there was
     an irregularity in the investigation and that Section 5-A of the
     Act, was not complied with in substance, the trial by the Special
     Judge cannot be held to be illegal unless it is shown that G
     miscarriage of justice has been caused on account of illegal
     investigation. The learned counsel for the appellant has been
     unable to show us how there has been any miscarriage of

                                                                             H
762      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2017] 7 S.C.R.


A       justice in this case and how the accused has been prejudiced
        by any irregular investigation."

      16. In State of Haryana v.. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC
      335], this Court while considering Section 5-A of the Act, held as
      under: (SCC pp. 384-85, para 119)
B
         "119. It has been ruled by this Court in several decisions that
         Section 5-A of the Act is mandatory and not directory and the
         investigation conducted in violation thereof bears the stamp of
         illegality but that illegality committed in the course of an
         investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction
 c       of the court for trial and where the cognizance of the case has
         in fact been taken and the case is proceeded to termination,
         the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the
         result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.
         See (1) H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196],
 D       (2) Major E.G Barsayv. State ofBombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762],
         (3) Munnalal v. State of U.P [AIR 1964 SC 28], (4)
         Sailendranath Bose v. State ofBihar [AIR 1968 SC 1292], (5)
         Muni Lal v. Delhi Admn. [(1971) 2 SCC 48] and (6) Khandu
          Sonu Dhobi v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 3 SCC 786].
         However, in Rishbud case [AIR 1955 SC 196] and Muni Lal
 E
          case ((1971) 2 sec 48], it has been ruled that if any breach of
          the said mandatory proviso relating to investigation is brought
          to the notice of the court at an early stage of the trial, the court
          will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and
          pass appropriate orders as may be called for to rectify the
 F        illegality and cure the defects in the investigation."

      17. In A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Admn ((1973) I SCC 726],
      provisions of Section 5-A were again considered by this Court
      and held as under: (SCC p. 735, para 15)

 G        "15. As the foregoing discussion shows the investigation in the
 I        present case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot
          be considered to be in any way unauthorised or contrary to
          law. In this connection it may not be out of place also to point


 H
   R.A.H. SIGURAN v. SHANK.ARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA.                                763
                        &ANR.

          out that the function ofinvestigation is merely to collect evidence   A
          and any irregularity or even illegality in the course of collection
          of evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to affect the
           legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court of the
           offence so investigated. In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
           [AIR 1955 SC 196], it was held that an illegality committed in       B
           the course of investigation does not affect the competence
           and jurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance of
           the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to
           termination of the invalidity of the preceding investigation does
           not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been
           caused thereby. When any breach of the mandatory provisions          C
          .relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the court at
           an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the
           nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders
           for such reinvestigation as may be called for, wholly or partly,
           and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference
                                                                                D
           to the requirements of Section 5-A of the Prevention of
          ,Corruption Act, 1947. This decision was followed in Munnalal
           v. State ofU.P. [AIR 1964 SC 28] where the decision in State
           ofM.P. v. MubarakAli [AIR 1959 SC 707], was distinguished.
           The same view was taken in State of A.P. v. N. Venugopal
           [AIR 1964 SC 33] and more recently.in Khandu Sonu Dhobi              E
           v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 3 SCC 786]. The decisions of
           the Calcutta, Punjab and Saurashtra High Courts reli~d
           upon by Mr Anthony deal with different points: in any event to
           the extent they contain any observations against the view
           expressed by this Court in the decisions just cited those
                                                                                F
           observations cannot be considered good Jaw."

       · 13. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the High Court
 was not justified in quashing the proceedings merely on the ground that
 the investigation was not valid. It is not necessary for this Court to go
 into the question raised by learned counsel for the appellants that there      G
 was no infirmity in the investigation.

         14. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aSlde the impugned
· order and direct the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance
  with law.
                                                                                H
                                    '.




764              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A            15. The parties are directed !O appear before the trial court for
      further proceedings on 22nd September, 2017.


      Devika Gujral                                             Appeal allowed.