Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

termination the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby". In view of this decision, even if there was irregularity in the investigation and s. 5A was not complied with in substance, the trials cannot be held to be illegal unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice has been caused on account of the illegal investigation. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to show us how there was any miscarriage of justice in these cases at all due to the irregular investigation. As a matter of fact on the alternative case put forward by the appellant, the substance of the prosecution case was practically admitted by him and he merely pleaded certain mitigating circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellant however drew our attention to the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali. (1) In that case an objection was taken before the trial began before the Special Judge that the investigation had been carried on in breach of s. 5A of the Act. The matter went before the High Court and it directed that in order to rectify the defect and cure the illegality in the investigation, the Special Judge should have ordered the Duputy Superintendent of Police to carry on the investigation himself while the case remained pending in the court of the Special Judge. That order of the High Court was brought in appeal to this Court, and the appeal was dismissed. This case in our opinion is of no assistance to the appellant, for there the objection was taken at the earliest stage before the trial began and it was in those circumstances that the trial was stayed till proper investigation was completed and a proper report made thereafter for the prosecution of the accused of that case. In the present cases no objection was taken at the trial when it began and it was allowed to come to an end. In these circumstances the ratio of Mubarakali's case (1) cannot apply and the decision in Rishbud's case (2) would apply. The appellant therefore cannot say that the trial was (1) [1959] supp. 2 S.C.R. 201. (2) [L955] 1 S. C.R. 1150 vitiated unless he can show that an.V, prejudice was caused to him on account of the illegal or irregular investigation. We have already remarked that no such thing has been shown in this case; nor was it possible 10 show any such thing in view of the alternative defence taken by the appellant. We therefore reject this contention.