The court affirmed that, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, assets of family members may be considered when determining disproportionate wealth, and political motivations are insufficient to quash charges supported by substantial evidence.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the FIR registered in RC No. 10(A)/2020 by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C. Act’).

2. Heard the arguments of both the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioner and learned Special counsel for the CBI.

3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the Income Tax Authorities conducted raid on the house of the petitioner and they said to have recovered Rs. 8,59,69,100/- out of which Rs. 41,00,000/- were recovered from the petitioner. Subsequently, the Income Tax Authorities registered a complaint against the petitioner under the INCOME TAX ACT in Spl. C. No. 759/2018 and on the basis of the said offence, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered the FIR against the petitioner in ECIR/04/HQ/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Act’). They issued the notice to the petitioner under Section 50 of the PML Act and then the ED sent a report to the Chief Secretary of Karnataka given consent under Section 6 of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (in short ‘DSPE Act’) and in turn the Chief Secretary of Karnataka sanctioned on 25.9.2019, for prosecuting the case against the petitioner under the P.C. Act. Accordingly, the CBI registered FIR on 03.10.2020 in R.C. No. 10(A)/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. The petitioner challenged the FIR on various grounds.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. Sandesh Chouta has contended that the petitioner is the President of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC). He is renowned politician and also engaged in various businesses like mining, real estate development, and other such businesses and he was also a member of Legislative Assembly from 1989, till date. He is representing in Satanuru Assembly Constitution and other constituency. He is occupied in various positions and serving the people of Karnataka. During his tenure as MLA, the Indian National Congress Party offered the MLA ticket and he was elected as MLA, he has worked as Minister in the Congress Government, he has discharged the duties with true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and the rule of law. He further contended that he hails from agricultural background, his entire family was also involved in agricultural activities and development of the lands and generated substantial wealth from his successive businesses, in various fields including the Education field. The petitioner further contended during several decades being Income Tax Assessee and has been filing Income Tax returns without any evasion. The petitioner also required to file affidavit along with the nomination paper, while contesting the election before the returning officer and also declared Assets and Liabilities before the Karnataka Lokayuktha. The petitioner also earned good respect and command in the State of Karnataka, but the opposite parties hatched many conspiracies against the petitioner, to scuttle his political growth and made several attempts to tarnish his image and reputation. Presently, the power with the Central Government under whose control the CBI operates is inimical to the petitioner.

5. It is further contended that