trial following an investigation conducted in violation of Section 5(4) of the PC Act, 1947 would not be illegal.

 Placing reliance upon a judgment of this
Court in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.
The State of Delhi36, wherein, while answering
the first question, this Court held that the
prohibition contained in Section 5(4) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 194737 was
mandatory in nature whereas while answering
the second question, this Court held that trial
following an investigation conducted in violation
of Section 5(4) of the PC Act, 1947 would not be
illegal. It was submitted that where a Magistrate
has already taken cognizance upon an
investigation, conducted without the approval
under Section 6A of the DSPE Act, the Court
can act on evidence collected during such
investigation and the proceedings would not be
vitiated in the absence of any prejudice both
36 (1955) 1 SCR 1150
37 In short, PC Act, 1947
Crl. Appeal No.377 of 2007 Page 29 of 106
actual and pleaded with respect to such
evidence. Reference has been made to the
following judgments:
(i) Fertico Marketing and
Investment Private Limited and
Others Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another38;
(ii) Rattiram and Others Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh39 ;
(iii) State of Karnataka Vs.
Kuppuswamy Gownder and
Others40;
38 (2021) 2 SCC 525
39 (2013) 12 SCC 316
40 AIR 1987 SC 1354