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.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.1/2020 registered by the then ACB, Mysuru (Now Lokayuktha) for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(b) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (for short ' P.C. Act ').

2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Special counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was said to be working as the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, SMR Division, Excise Department, Bengaluru since 22 years and during his tenure, he has amassed wealth more than the known source of income to the tune of Rs.1, 10, 63, 991.00 than the known source of income which amounts to 122.93%. The Lokayuktha Police have calculated the value of assets i.e., movable and immovable property to the tune of 1, 34, 63, 991/- and expenditures were Rs.66, 00, 000.00 which amounts to Rs.20, 063, 991.00 and his known source of income was Rs.90, 00, 000.00, thereby, Rs.1, 10, 93, 991.00 was excess assets than the known source of income. After registering the case, the ACB Police took up the investigation. Now presently, the investigation is taken up by the Lokayuktha Police which is under challenge.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Lokayuktha Police while taking the asset for calculation, they have taken the assets belongs to his wife as well as father. The wife of the petitioner is also a Government employee and the loan taken by the petitioner for Rs.22, 00, 000.00 from Canara Bank has not been considered. The expenditure is not specific, there is no split up. Considering the family as one unit for the purpose of assessing the assets, but they have not considered the income of the family members. It is not a case as the property is owned by the petitioner under Benami name. Absolutely, there is no material against the petitioner. There is no source report collected by the Police before registering the FIR, directly they registered the case without any substance. The learned counsel further contended that no prior sanction has been sought for registering the FIR under Sec. 17(A) of the P.C. Act. There is no preliminary enquiry conducted by the police before registering the FIR. The preliminary enquiry is necessary to know the earning members of the family and their properties. It is further contended that the father of the petitioner was also a retired Government servant. He has declared the income of Rs.1, 90, 00, 000.00 for about 30 years. The mother of the petitioner is also receiving Rs.23, 00, 000.00 as pension. The wife of the petitioner has declared income of Rs.54, 00, 000.00 and son of the petitioner is working as an Engineer in Australia and he has contributed Rs.22, 00, 000.00 per annum. There is no check period for calculating the assets and liabilities of the petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no preliminary enquiry required. The check period was from 1997 to till date. The petitioner was involved in a trap case and during the trap, he was found in possession of huge assets. The matter is required for investigation. The FIR cannot be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot sit as an auditor in calculating the income. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the Lokayuktha Police registered the FIR against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Ss. 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The case was registered on 16/3/2000. The learned Senior counsel has contended that under Sec. 13(1)(b) of P.C. Act, the alleged offence was not in statute book which is non existing provision. Therefore, the very registering the FIR for the said offence is not correct.

7. The learned Senior counsel for t