P. SIRAJUDDIN ETC. versus STATE OF MADRAS ETC.

P. SIRAJUDDIN ETC. versus STATE OF MADRAS ETC.

Although technical investigation under Chapter XIV, Cr.P.C. did not commence until a formal FIR was lodged, serious irregularities in the preliminary inquiry caused prejudice to the appellant and such practices are not excused. However, the High Court's directions to exclude improperly obtained statements are...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: P. Sirajuddin; Respondent: State of Madras
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 March 1970
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment and Order Dated April 13, 1966
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Investigation Procedure, Prevention of Corruption Act, Irregularities in Police Investigation, Immunity and Pardon, Discrimination in Prosecution
Criminal Law Investigation Procedure Prevention of Corruption Act Irregularities in Police Investigation Immunity and Pardon Discrimination in Prosecution

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. Sirajuddin

Appellant

State of Madras

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment and Order Dated April 13, 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the investigation by Vigilance Department violated procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code
  2. 2 If irregularities during inquiry prejudiced the accused
  3. 3 Whether immunity/pardons were correctly granted to subordinates

Ratio Decidendi

Although technical investigation under Chapter XIV, Cr.P.C. did not commence until a formal FIR was lodged, serious irregularities in the preliminary inquiry caused prejudice to the appellant and such practices are not excused. However, the High Court's directions to exclude improperly obtained statements are adequate remedy. The Prevention of Corruption Act, s.5(1)(b) covers receipt of valuable things from subordinates, not just outsiders.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Special Judge to follow directions of the High Court, including exclusion of statements obtained in violation of Cr.P.C. provisions.