Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sri K.R. Kumar Naik, S/o. Rajendra Naik - Petitioner
Versus
The State By Anti Corruption Bureau Represented By Its Deputy Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7911 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 26-07-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(b), 13(2) – Savings of inherent powers of High court - Whether to what extent such an enquiry is permissible and what would be scope and ambit of such an enquiry - Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty, some suitable preliminary inquiry into allegations by a responsible officer should be made. (Para 13).
Finding of the Court: Original records that were placed before Court would also indicate no collection of any material, in nature of preliminary inquiry or a source information report taking place prior to registration of FIR. All that file contains is search conducted in Crime concerning some other officer and that material being used against petitioner to register crime. Every record is sought to be built up subsequent to said date i.e., date of registration of crime against petitioner - It becomes a fit case, where this Court cannot turn a blind eye to plea of petitioner for exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and obliterate registration of crime against petitioner, failing which, it would become a classic illustration of a case becoming an abuse of process of law and resulting in miscarriage of justice and above all, putting a premium on action of ACB, notwithstanding fact that 'the ACB blissfully ignored ABC of procedure'.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.24 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short).
2. Succinctly stated, facts germane for a decision are as follows :
The petitioner is a public servant working as an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. This case brings out a strange circumstance where the petitioner is hauled into the impugned proceedings. A little background for such hauling of the petitioner into the web of the provisions of the Act is that, a crime in Crime No.23 of 2022 was registered against one Sri J.Jnanendra Kumar, Additional Commissioner for Transport by the respondent/Anti-Corruption Bureau. The crime against one Sri J.Jnanendra Kumar was registered on 15-03-2022 on an allegation that he possessed disproportionate assets to the known source of income. In connection with the case registered against one Sri J. Jnanendra Kumar the house of one Sri Munavar Pasha was searched on 16.03.2022, the next day of registration of crime against Sri J. Jnanendra Kumar in Crime No.23 of 2022. During the search two travel bags and one carton box were found which were said to be belonging to the petitioner. Based on the search conducted in Crime No.23 of 2022 a source report was immediately prepared against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income on the very day i.e., 16-03-2022 and based upon the said source report a fresh crime came to be registered in Crime No.24 of 2022, also on the very day i.e., 16-03-2022 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner. Pursuant to registration of FIR on 16-03-2022 the respondent/ACB conduct a raid/search on the house and office of the petitioner. It is the registration of crime in Crime No.24 of 2022 that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri K. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Manmohan, Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the entire process initiated by the ACB is contrary to law, as there was no preliminary inquiry conducted as is necessary, no source report is prepared earlier again as is necessary and disproportionate assets that are shown in the so prepared source report is zero. Notwithstanding this, an FIR is registered, search is conducted and the petitioner is harassed.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the ACB would seek to refute the submissions to contend that while conducting search in Crime No.23 of 2022 incriminating material was found, may not be in connection with Crime No.23 of 2022 but to a fresh case of disproportionate assets. It is his submission that a search warrant was obtained, FIR is registered and house and office of the petitioner was searched and the investigation is on and as such, this Court should not interfere or interject at this stage and has produced original records for perusal of the Court.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the employer of the petitioner is the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited to whom assets and liabilities statement is to be submitted by the petitioner and the claim is it has been submitted. It is further not in dispute that a crime in Crime No.23 of 2022 was registered against one Sri J. Jnanendra Kumar on 15-03-2022. In connection with Crime No.23 of 2022 house of one Munavar Pasha was searched which was a product of preliminary enquiry conducted by the ACB against Sri J. Jnanendra Kumar, who allegedly h
Anti-Corruption Bureau which performs a very significant role in checking corruption amongst public servants cannot indulge itself in such casual act of drawing up source information report on instan....
The necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry in cases of alleged corruption involving disproportionate assets, and the requirement of registering an FIR based on existing legal provisions.
A preliminary inquiry is conducted before registering a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Information shared under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be a valid b....
Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before FIR registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act; a prima facie case allows for investigation without prior inquiry.
A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act if a prima facie case exists based on a detailed source information report.
FIR was quashed due to failure to conduct a preliminary enquiry and non-compliance with the Prevention of Corruption Act and related guidelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
