IMPORTANT POINT
Where the FIR expressly sets out the four essential ingredients of the offence it so 5(J)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 then the fifth ingredient namely that the accused cannot Satisfactorily account for his assets disproportionals to his all known sources of income is implicit is the FIR.

JUDGMENT

M. Rama Jois, J. - The petitioner, a Dy. General Manager of the Syndicate Bank; has presented this writ petition praying for quashing the two first information reports dt. 19-2-1983 (Annexure-A) and 23-3-1983 (Annexure C) and also for a direction to the respondents restraining them conducting investigation on the basis of the information containing in Annexure A and C. The petitioner has also prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to return all the properties and documents taken possession of by the respondents during investigation.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner joined service in the year 1959 on the establishment of the then Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd. The said Bank was acquired under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfers of Undertakings Act, 1970. After the acquisition of the Bank, it came to be named as 'Syndicate Bank'. In view of the acquisition of the Bank by the Government, it also became a public body and fell within the definition of the word 'State' as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner also became a public servant.

(ii) On 19-2-1983 a first Information report (Annexure-A) signed by the police Inspector of the Central Bureau of Intelligence, Bangalore, was sent to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (the Spl. Judge for SPE cases), alleging commission of offence under Ss. 5 (2) and 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act' for short). A second report was sent on 23-3-1983 (Annexure-C). The contents of both the reports are almost identical. The investigation has been undertaken in respect of the offence alleged against the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for restraining the respondents from conducting any investigation pursuant to the two first information reports.

3. Sri N. B. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following contention:

The first information reports do not disclose all the ingredients of the offence under Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act and, therefore, the respondents had no legal authority to conduct the investigation in respect of the charge under Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act alleged against the petitioner.

4. Elaborating the 1bove contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows: The existence of a first information report, in which all the ingredients of the offence are disclosed constitute the very basis and foundation for the exercise of powers of investigation under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for short). In the present case, the offence alleged against the petitioner is Section 5 (1)(e) of the Act. According to the sub section, the essential ingredients of the offence are

(i) Possession of assets by a public servant which is disproportionate to the known sources of income of the public servant; and

(ii) the public servant has no satisfactory explanation in respect of the disproportionate assets possessed by him.

Both the first information reports do not disclose the essential ingredients, to that while the known sources of income of the petitioner has been given and the value of the assets said to be in the possession of the petitioner has been set out, there is no allegation or statement to the effect that the petitioner had no satisfactory explanation for the assets in his possession. In the absence of specification of that essential ingredient, the first information report cannot be regarded as having disclosed an offence and consequently the respondents had no legal authority to conduct investigation.

5. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of W. B. v. Swarankumat.1 In particular he relied on paras 10 and 21 of the judgment and contended that the police had no power to commence and conduct investigation under Section 157 of the Code as their power to investi