A.C. SHARMA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Appellant: A. C. Sharma; Respondent: Delhi Administration; Intervenor: Attorney-General for India
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 05 February 1973
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Investigation of Corruption Offences, Jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment, Interpretation of Procedural Statutes

Criminal Law Anti Corruption Investigation of Corruption Offences Jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment Interpretation of Procedural Statutes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

A. C. Sharma

Appellant

Delhi Administration

Respondent

Attorney-General for India

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether only Delhi Special Police Establishment had jurisdiction to investigate offences against Central Government employees under Prevention of Corruption Act
2 Whether investigation by the Anti-Corruption Department of Delhi Administration was unauthorised and vitiates the trial
3 Construction of s. 5A(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Ratio Decidendi

The Prevention of Corruption Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act confer concurrent powers of investigation upon both the Special Police Establishment and the regular police. Investigation by the Anti-Corruption Department of Delhi Administration was not unauthorised, does not vitiate the trial, and the law does not confer exclusive power upon the Special Police Establishment. Irregularity or illegality in investigation does not by itself affect the competence of the trial court.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

The appeal fails and is dismissed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.