The omission of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act invalidates the prosecution in cases arising post-amendment, necessitating adherence to proper procedural standards in investigations.

ORDER :

S. RACHAIAH, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to set aside the order dated 07.01.2022 in Spl.C.C.No.332/2020 on the file of the learned XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru (CCH-4).

2. For the purpose of convenience, the ranks of the parties will be considered henceforth as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was working as the Chairman and Managing Director at M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., (for short “M/s. BEML). The complainant based on reliable source of information opined that the accused had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income in a sum of Rs.1,52,63,155/- during the check period from 01.12.2002 to 19.04.2012 as against an income of Rs.2,57,56,227/-. Based on the said information, they conducted a search and seizure and thereafter registered FIR. After conducting investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. Being aggrieved by filing of the charge sheet, the accused had preferred an application for discharge and the same came to be rejected by the Trial Court.

4. Heard Sri B.V.Acharya and Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior Advocates for Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Spl.P.P. for Sri K.N. Nithin Gowda and Smt. Ramula, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the order of the Trial Court in rejecting the application is contrary to the established principles of law and also the material available on record. Therefore, the order is erroneous and improper.

6. It is further submitted that Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is omitted by the Legislature, by substituting Section 13 by Amendment Act of 2018, which came into effect on 26.07.2018. The said omission has resulted in abrogation or obliteration of omitted rule in the same way as would have been in the case of repeal of the Statute, as if such a Statute had never been enacted, consequently, the cases or proceedings, the prosecution cannot commence, continue or punish after the omission.

7. Learned Senior Counsel, in this context, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise and another , [(2016) 3 SCC 643]

8. It is further submitted that the launching of the prosecution is barred by time / limitation. Though the alleged offence of possession of property disproportionate to the known sources of income is alleged to have been taken place only between 1.12.2002 to 31.10.2007, to determine the period of limitation, three years period is prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the relevant time has to be considered.

9. It is further submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the two earlier preliminary inquiries on the same subject and also suppressed its results. The prosecution has indeed earlier registered three FIRs and also filed three preliminary inquiries on non-DA complaints against the accused and all six were closed as no verification / preliminary enquiry was done to make out a prima facie case.

10. It is further submitted that even though the accused had intimated the authority regarding the purchase of property and construction of the house, the income of the family has not b