IMPORTANT POINT
The investigating agency has the discretion to register an FIR without conducting a preliminary enquiry if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. The choice of the check period for establishing disproportionate assets must be reasonable.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner, the accused in FIR No. 1/2021 of SCK of VACB, Special Cell, Kozhikode, seeks to quash Annexure-I FIR in these proceedings. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment Act), 2018.

Facts

2. The petitioner is an Assistant Surgeon in the Kerala Health Services. In 2017, while he was working as a Medical Consultant in the Government Taluk Hospital, Thamarassery in Kozhikode District, one Shri Noushad filed a complaint before the VACB, Kozhikode, alleging that the petitioner demanded a bribe from him for doing a laparoscopic surgery on his wife. The VACB registered crime No. 1/2017/KKD alleging offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The Vigilance laid a trap. The petitioner was arrested at the time of receiving a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant. The VACB conducted investigation and submitted a final report, dropping all further proceedings against the petitioner. However, the Special Court did not accept the report and ordered further investigation.

3. The VACB registered the present crime V.C. No. 1/2021, alleging that the petitioner amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 20.01.2011 to 31.12.2017 based on confidential information. The investigation is going on. During the investigation, the check period was revised as 01.01.2011 to 03.02.2021.

Submissions

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:

(1) The offences alleged in Crime No. 1/2021 ought to have been included in FIR No. 1/2017 in view of Section 220 of the Cr.P.C.

(2) The investigating agency has not complied with the directions in Clause 54 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Manual.

(3) There is an inordinate delay in the registration of the Crime.

(4) No preliminary enquiry was conducted before registration of the crime.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:

(1) The offences in Crime No. 1/2017 and Crime No. 1/2021 are distinct and different. Hence the question of joinder of charges doesn’t arise.

(2) The non-compliance with any guidelines in the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Manual will not affect the credibility of the FIR and the investigation in any way.

(3) Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory for registering a crime if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

6. The VACB registered FIR No. 1/2017/KKD alleging offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the PC Act based on the allegation that the petitioner demanded a bribe from the de facto complainant on 23.01.2017. The VACB arrested the petitioner and seized currency notes from him at the time of receiving the bribe. In the present FIR, the allegation essentially is that during the check period from 01.01.2011 to 03.02.2021, the petitioner had been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the allegations in both the transactions are so connected together as to form the same transaction, the Investigating Agency ought to have included the allegations levelled in Crime No. 1/2021 in the investigation in Crime No. 1/2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of 220 Cr.P.C. are applicable to the facts of the case.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations levelled in Crime No. 1/2021, that is, amassment of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to petitioner’s known sources within the check period from 01.01.2011 to 03.02.2021 cannot be taken as acts so connected to form part of the transactions alleged in crime No. 1/2017.

8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that