Important Point
Merely because an FIR and investigation for alleged offence u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for a particular check period culminated in acceptance of ‘B’ form by Court, fresh FIR and investigation which covered earlier check period also cannot be quashed.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act-Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2)-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Sections 173 and 300-Assets disproportionate to known source of income-For check period 1.8.1978 to 24.8.1989 investigation culminated in acceptance of ‘B’ form by Special Court-Subsequent investigation and filing of FIR for period 1.8.1978 till 25.7.95-Petition to quash FIR on plea that for same check period second FIR after acceptance of ‘B’ form was bad-Not tenable-No bar under Cr.P.C. to investigate and file FIR merely because of earlier FIR which culminated in a ‘B’ form-However, asset valued at a particular value cannot be valued higher in present proceedings unless positive ground is for such valuation-Investigating authorities has to look into result of earlier proceedings while investigating present proceedings.
Held : We do not find any provision in the Code which debars the filing of an FIR and investigating into the alleged offences merely because for an earlier period, namely, 1.8.78 to 24.8.89 there was First Information Report which was duly investigated into and culminated in a ‘B’ form which was accepted by a Competent Court. At the same time we are also of the opinion that the conclusion of the High Court that the present proceeding relates to fresh alleged assets and fresh check period is not wholly correct, in as much as admittedly the check period from 1.8.78 till 24.8.89 was the subject matter in the Crime Case No. 22 of 89 and the same ended in submission of ‘B’ form. Though the earlier period also could be a subject matter of investigation for variety of reasons like some assets not being taken into account or some materials brought during investigation not being taken into account yet at the same time the results of the earlier investigation cannot be totally obliterated and ignored by the Investigating Agency. But that cannot be a ground for quashing of the First Information Report itself and for injuncting the investigating authority to investigate into the offence alleged. We also find sufficient force in the arguments of Mr. Sibbal that the assets which were valued in the earlier investigation proceeding at a particular value cannot be valued higher in the present proceeding unless any positive ground is there for such valuation. For example, a car which was valued in the earlier proceeding at Rs. 60,000/- could not have been valued at Rs. 1,70,000/- in the present proceedings but at this stage the Court is not required to go into these matters as investigation is only at threshold. For the aforesaid reasons, while we are not in a position to quash the FIR, but we would make it clear that the Investigating Authority will certainly look into the earlier proceedings and the result of investigation thereunder and the submission of ‘B’ Form which was duly accepted by the competent Court while investigating into the present proceedings as well as the observations made by us in this judgment. Subject to the aforesaid observations this appeal is disposed of. (Para 5)

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant is a Class-I officer of Karnataka Administrative Service. On 24.8.1989 a report was drawn up against him under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging therein that he has assets disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation the Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta authorised the Investigating Officer to submit a ‘B’ report before the Special Judge, Bangalore where the matter was pending and after issuance of a public notice in the prescribed form inviting objections to the aforesaid ‘B’ report from the interested persons by order dated 11.4.1991, the said ‘B’ report was accepted by the learned Special Judge. Properties of the appellant which had been earlier attached were directed to be released. On 25.7.95 the Supdt. of Police Karnataka Lokayukta authorised the Deputy Supdt. Of Police to investigate into the assets of the appellant and find out whether an offence has been committed under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the same day an FIR was filed alleging commission of offence against the appellant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the gravamen of the allegation is that between the period from 1.8.78 to 25.7.95 the appellant has acquired assets amounting to Rs. 58,77,000/- as against his known source of income of Rs. 9,90,000/- and thereby the disproportion is to the tune of Rs. 52,17,000/-. The appellant filed a Criminal Petition before the High Court of Karnataka invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the FIR in LAC Crime No. 21 of 95 inter alia on the ground that Crime No. 22 of 89 having been registered against the appellant for a check period 1.8.79 till 24.8.89 and after due investigation a ‘B’ report having been filed and the same being accepted it was not proper for the Investigating Authority to file another FIR which includes the earlier check period of 1.8.78 till 24.8.89. The learned Judge of the High Court, however, was not persuaded to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and on examining the FIR and the allegations made therein came to the conclusion that it was a set of fresh allegations in respect of fresh alleged during a fresh check period and, as such, question of quashing the FIR does not arise. It is against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Mr. Sibbal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the assets of the appellant for the period 1.8.78 till 24.8.89 having been the subject matter of an investigation pursuant to Crime Case No. 22 of 89 and a ‘B’ form having been filed by the Investigating Agency which was approved by the Magistrate, inclusion of the said period in the fresh FIR is itself bad and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. Mr. Sibbal, also contended that in view of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Agency has the right to file fresh report on the basis of fresh materials but that not having been done the impugned FIR for the period 1.8.78 till 25.7.95 cannot be sustained. According to Mr. Sibbal the very fact that the Investigating Agency is not aware of the earlier criminal proceeding and the investigating thereupon which ultimately ended in a ‘B’ form and accepted by the Court indicates the total non-application of mind and pursuing the appellant maliciously and, therefore, the Court should interfere with the proceeding. According to Mr. Sibbal after the FIR is given whatever statements are received are in course of investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that being the position there cannot be two FIRs for the period 1.8.78 till 24.8.89. The le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 225

Important PointMerely because an FIR and investigation for alleged offence u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for a particular check period culminated in acceptance of ‘B’ form by Court, fresh FIR and investigation which covered earlier check period also cannot be quashed.

Important Point
Merely because an FIR and investigation for alleged offence u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for a particular check period culminated in acceptance of ‘B’ form by Court, fresh FIR and investigation which covered earlier check period also cannot be quashed.