IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence, and the exclusion of relevant periods from investigation undermines credibility.

ORDER :

K.BABU, J.

The petitioner, who claims to be a person fighting against corruption in society, seeks investigation by the CBI into the allegations of amassment of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by respondent No.3, a former IAS Officer presently employed as the Chief Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala in the cabinet rank. The petitioner also seeks to set aside the order dated 28.11.2017 rejecting CMP No.298/2016, a complaint filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (‘the Special Court’ for short).

2. The petitioner filed the above-referred complaint before the Special Court alleging the following:-

2.1 On 13.04.2015, the petitioner filed an application to the Chief Secretary, as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding the statements filed by respondent No.3 as per Rule 16(1)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, pertaining to the assets of himself and his dependents. The petitioner was served with a reply stating that respondent No.3 did not submit property statements for six years. On further verification, the petitioner realized that respondent No.3 never disclosed the assets of his dependent wife, Smt.Shirley Abraham and his daughter Ann Abraham. The petitioner addressed this dereliction of duty to the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary of the State. On 29.06.2015, the Chief Secretary sought the remarks of respondent No.3, to which he submitted that his dependent wife and daughter had not acquired any movable or immovable property during his service period. In view of the remarks submitted by respondent No.3, further action in the matter was dropped.

2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained relevant documents regarding the assets of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 acquired an apartment worth Rupees Three Crores in Mumbai city and an apartment worth Rupees One Crore at Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram District. He also constructed a three-storey shopping complex at Kadappakkada, Kollam District, the value of which would come to Rupees Eight Crores.

2.3. In some of the property statements, respondent No.3 had shown the repayment of loan with regard to the apartment in Mumbai @ Rs.84,000/- per month, whereas his monthly income was Rs.80,000/-, which would reveal that he could not make repayment from his known sources of income. He also did not disclose the source of income utilized for the repayment of loan pertaining to the apartment at Thycaud. Respondent No.3 did not disclose the source of income for constructing the multi-storey shopping complex at Kadappakkada.

3. In the complaint containing the above allegations, the learned Special Judge ordered a preliminary enquiry (Quick Verification) by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (‘the VACB’ for short). The Director, VACB authorised the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, to conduct the preliminary enquiry. The VACB submitted a report stating that there was no substantial evidence to prove the allegations and, hence, there is no scope for any further action.

4. The petitioner filed objections to the conclusions in the preliminary enquiry report.

5. The learned Special Judge, on evaluation of the materials placed before the Court, came to the conclusion that the complainant brought no acceptable evidence to substantiate his allegations. Consequently, the Special Court rejected the complaint.

6. The petitioner challenges the order rejecting the complaint and seeks an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

7. The petitioner appeared in person. I have heard the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance), the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.

8. I have also gone through the file relating to the preliminary enquiry conducted by the VACB. (Q.V.25/2016/SCT)

9. The petitioner made the following submissions:-

(i