The second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates clear reasoning for investigation authorization, and FIR registration is independent of such authorization.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in all these petitions pertains to the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for offenses under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1988’).

2. The petitioners fall under the definition of public servants as per Section 2(c) of the Act, 1988. First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered against them on allegations of possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.

3. A police inspector from the respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta-prepared a source report detailing the movable and immovable assets owned by the petitioners, their spouses, and other family members. This source report, along with covering letters, was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta.

4. The Superintendent of Police, invoking the Second Proviso to Section 17 of the Act, 1988, authorized the police inspectors/Dy. Superintendent of Police of the respective Lokayukta Police Stations to investigate the case. Following this authorization, FIRs were registered, and the investigation commenced.

5. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Sri K.N. Phanindra, Sri Sandesh J. Chouta and Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsels argue as follows:

(i) The orders issued by the Superintendent of Police under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act, 1988, which authorize police inspectors/Dy. Superintendent of Police to conduct investigations, are uniform in content except for the names of the accused and the Superintendent of Police. These orders lack any reasoning or evidence of thoughtful consideration regarding the decision to investigate the case against the petitioners.

(ii) The purpose of the second proviso is to prevent the unwarranted harassment of public servants who perform their duties under challenging conditions. The use of the term “without order” implies a higher standard than mere requirements for authorization, approval, consent, or sanction.

6. Therefore, the orders issued by the Superintendent of Police do not meet the requirements set forth in the second proviso. As a result, the registration of the FIRs and the subsequent investigations are invalidated.

7. In support, reliance is placed on the following decisions:

(a) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

(b) CBI vs. Hemendhra Reddy, AIR Online 2023 SC 468

(c) State of Karnataka vs. B. Narayana Reddy, 2001 SCC Online Kar 673

(d) Udaya Ravi vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 104906/2023

(e) K.L. Gangadharaiah vs. The Karnataka Lokayukta Police, W.P. No. 11822/2023, dated 28.7.2023

8. In a case involving disproportionate assets, conducting a preliminary enquiry is not only desirable but mandatory. This preliminary enquiry is crucial to assess the credibility and veracity of the information received. It ensures that only genuine cases of disproportionate assets proceed to a full investigation. Furthermore, it serves to protect the reputation of individuals from unfounded accusations. In support, a reliance is placed on the following decisions:

(a) Charansingh vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 469

(b) Navneet Mohan N. vs. The Station Officer and Another, W.P. No. 43817/2018

(c) J. Gnanendra Kumar vs. The Chief Secretary and Another, W.P. No. 8170/2022

(d) Balakrishna H.N. vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 15886/2022

(e) L. Satish Kumar vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 6732/2023

9. Additionally, Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior Counsel, argued that there is a clear distinction between the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and the subsequent investigation under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. The restriction imposed by the second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pertains to the conduct of the investigation and not the registration of an FIR under Section 154. Upon receiving information indicating that a public servant is in possession of assets disproportionate to