Back
2004(2) JLJ 234
(SUPREME COURT)
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others
Cr. Appeal No. 292 of 1997; against order of M.P. High Court
passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 2555 of 1995; Decided on 18.11.2003.
The State of Madhya Pradesh questions legality of judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench accepting the prayer made in terms of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code‘) to quash the investigation and proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the‘ Act‘) in a case (Crime No. 116/94) registered by the Speical Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior. Seven petitioners, who are the respondents herein, had filed the petition to quash the investigation and the proceedings on the ground that while investigating into the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by present respondent No.1 Awadh Kishore Gupta (petitioner No.1 before the High Court and described as ‘accused‘ hereinafter), the income of the other respondents were not taken note of. ... The basic allegation against the accused was that he had acquired property beyond his known source of income thereby rendering him punishable under section 13(1) (e) of the Act. [Para 1
Held: It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Judge. EvenWrren charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. ... When the factual position of the case at hand is considered in the light of principles of law highlighted, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation and proceedings in the connected case. (1992) 3 SCC 317 relied on. Order of High Court reversed. [Para 13
(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988--S. 13(1) (e)--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947--S. 5(1) (e) -- provision under S. 13(1) (e)--corresponds to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of Old Act--there are drastic amendments--prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into source of income. [Para 5
(3) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988--S. 13(1) (e)--Evidence Act, 1872--S. 106--expression ‘known sources of income‘--has reference to sources known to prosecution after thorough investigation--prosecution cannot be expected to know affairs of accused person --this matter is specially within the knowledge of accused within the meaning of S. 106 of Evidence Act. [Para 5
(4) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988--S. 13(1) (e) -- word ‘income‘ -- qua the public servant income is remuneration or salary--it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt -- having no nexus to one‘s labour.
The phrase ‘known sources of income‘ in section 13(1) (e) [old section 5(1) (e)] has clearly the emphasis on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income" by itself, is elastic and• has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received, is income. But, however wide the import and connotation of the term‘ ‘income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one‘s labour, or expertise, or property, or investment, and having further a source which mayor may not yield a regular revenue. [Para 6
(5) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 13(1) (e) -- expression ‘satisfactorily account‘ u emphasis is on word ‘satisfactorily‘ u burden is on accused to offer plausible explanarion of his large wealth u he has also to satisfy the Court that his explanation is worthy of acceptance.
[Para 7
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973--S.482--case under Prevention of Corruption Act -- exercise of inherent power is exception and not the rule. [Para 8
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973 --S. 482--provision does not confer any new power on High Court -- it only saves inherent power which the Court possessed even before the enactment of the Code. [Para 8
(8) Criminal P.C., 1973--S.482--inherent jurisdiction--may be exercised under three circumstances.
It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. [Para 8
(9) Court--every Court whether civil or criminal possesses inherent power to do right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice.
(10) Legal Maxims--quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest -- means when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist. [Para 8
(11) Criminal P.C., 1973--S. 482--inherent power--may be exercised to quash proceedings when there is a legal bar of notice etc., when allegations do not constitute any offence, when there is no legal evidence. AIR 1960 SC 866 relied on. . [Para 9
(12) Criminal P.C., 1973--S.482--power--should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases--the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335 relied on. [Para 10
(13) Criminal P.C., 1973--S. 482 -- High Court can quash the proceeding at any stage -- no hard and fast rule can be laid down. AIR 1993 SC 892 and AIR 1964 SC 1 relied on. [Para 11
(14) Criminal P.C., 1973--S. 482--allegations of mala fide against informant -- are of no consequence--no proceedings can be quashed on this ground. AIR 1990 SC 494, 1992 Suppl. SCC 222, (1995) 6 SCC 194, (1999) 2 SCC 651, (1996) 7 SCC 705, (1997) 2 SCC 397, (1999) 8 SCC 728, AIR 1999 SC 1216 and (2002) 3 SCC 89 relied on. [Para 11
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&vUos"k.k iw.kZ ugha&lax`ghr lk{; lkfcr fd;k tkuk visf{kr&vkjksi dk vf/kjksi.k vkf{kIr gks rc Hkh U;k;ky; dks vfHkys[kxr lkexzh dk ewY;kadu djuk gksrk gS&,sls ekeyksa esa vUos"k.k vfHk[kafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA e/; çns‘k jkT; us e/;çns‘k mPp U;k;ky; ds fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼la{ksi esa ^lafgrk*½ dh /kkjk 482 ds vuqlkj Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼la{ksi esa ^vf/kfu;e*½ ds v/khu fo‘ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk] yksdk;qDr] Xokfy;j }kjk jftLVªhÑr vUos"k.k vkSj dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus dh çkFkZuk Lohdkj djrs gq, fu.kZ; dh oS/krk ij ç‘uxr fd;k gSA lkr ;kfp;ksa us] tks bl vihy esa çR;FkhZ gSa] vUos"k.k rFkk dk;Zokgh bl vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ds fy, ;kfpdk Qkby dh Fkh fd orZeku çR;FkhZ Ø-1 vo/k fd‘kksj xqIrk ¼mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kph Ø-1 rFkk ,rfLeui‘pkr~ ^vfHk;qDr* ds :i esa of.kZr½ }kjk vuuqikfrd vkfLr;ksa ds vfHkdfFkr vtZu dk vUos"k.k djrs le; vU; çR;fFkZ;ksa dh vk; ij /;ku ugha fn;k x;kA----vfHk;qDr ds fo#) ewyHkwr vfHkdFku ;g Fkk fd mlus viuh vk; ds Kkr L=ksr ls ijs laifÙk vftZr dh gS ftlls og vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½ ¼M+½ ds v/khu naMuh; gks x;k gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS fd vUos"k.k iw.kZ ugha gqvk Fkk rFkk ml çØe ij mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lkexzh ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vuuqKs; Fkk] ftldh Lohdk;Zrk lkjr% fopkj.k dk fo"k; gSA lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk ç;qDr djrs le; U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh Hkk¡fr dk;Z fd;k tkuk vuqKs; ugha gSA ml çØe ij vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tk, rc Hkh vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, i;kZIr vk/kkj gksus ds ckjs esa U;k;ky; dks dsoy çFken`"V;k lek/kku djuk gksrk gSA bl lhfer ç;kstu ds fy, U;k;ky; vfHkys[kxr lkexzh vkSj nLrkost dk ewY;kadu dj ldrk gS ijarq og lk{; dk ewY;kadu ugha dj ldrkA bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus ds fy, fd is‘k dh xbZ lkexzh vfHk;qDr dks fl)nks"k Bgjkus ds fy, i;kZIr gS ;k ugha] U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; dk ewY;kadu visf{kr ugha gSA----tc çLrqr ekeys dh rF;kRed fLFkfr ij] fof‘k"Vrk çnÙk fl)karksa ds çdk‘k esa fopkj djus ij vfuok;Z fu"d"kZ ;g fudyrk gS fd mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lacaf/kr ekeys esa vUos"k.k vkSj dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr dh tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha FkkA ¼1992½ 3 ,l lh lh 317 voyafcrA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k myVk x;kA ¼iSjk 13½ ¼2½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 13¼1½ ¼M+½&Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947&/kkjk 5¼1½ ¼M+½&/kkjk 13¼1½ ¼M+½ ds v/khu mica/k&iqjkus vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼M+½ ds lqn`‘k gS&mPp la‘kks/ku fd, x, gSa&vfHkkstui{k vk; ds L=ksr ds vUos"k.k ds Hkkj ls eqDr dj fn;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 5½ ¼3½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 13¼1½ ¼M+½&Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1847&/kkjk 106&vfHkOfDr ^vk; dh Kkr L=ksrksa&lw{e vUos"k.k ds i‘pkr~ vfHk;kstui{k dks Kkr L=ksr fufnZ"V gSa&vfHkkstui{k dks vfHk;qDr O;fDr ds ekeyksa dh tkudkjh gksuk çR;kf‘kr ugha gSa&;g fo"k; lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds vFkkZrxr fo‘ks"kr% vfHk;qDr ds Kku esa gksus okyk fo"k; gSA ¼4½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 13¼1½ ¼M+½&‘‘kCn ^vk;*&yksd lsod lsod gh gSfl;r esa vk; ikfjJfed ;k osru gS&og O;fDr ds Je ls vlca) çkfIr ds vFkZ esa le>s tkus ;skX; ugha gSA /kkjk 13¼1½ ¼M+½ ¿iqjkuh /kkjk 5¼1½ ¼M+½À esa okD;ka‘k ^^vk; ds Kkr L=ksrkas** esa Li"Vr% cy ‘‘kCn ^^vk;** ij fn;k x;k gSA çkFkfedr% /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS fd yksd lsod dh gSfl;r esa] vk; og gksxh tks mlds in ;k inLFkku ls la;qDr gS] tks lkekU;r% ikfjJfed ;k osru ds :i esa fofnr gSA ‘‘kCn ^^vk;** Lo;a yphyk gS rFkk mldk O;kid vFkZ gSA tks dqN Hkh vkrk gS ;k çkIr fd;k tkrk gS] og vk; gSA ijarq ‘‘kCn ^^vk;** dk vfHkçk; vkSj vFkZ fdruk Hkh foLr`r D;ksa ugha gks] og O;fDr ds Je] ;k dkS‘ky] ;k laifÙk ;k fuos‘k ls vlca) çkfIr ds] rFkk ,slk vfrfjDr L=ksr gksus ds vFkZ esa le>s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS ftlls fu;fer jktLo çkIr gks Hkh ldrk gS] ugha HkhA ¼iSjk 6½ ¼5½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 13¼1½ ¼M-½&vfHkOfDr ^lek/kkuçn :i ls fooj.k*&cy ‘‘kCn ^lek/kkuçn ij gSa&viuh ^c`gr~ laifÙk dk Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk Hkkj vfHk;qDr ij gSa&mls U;k;ky; dk lek/kku Hkh djuk gksrk gS fd mldk Li"Vhdj.k Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ¼iSjk 7½ ¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ekeyk&varfuZfgr ‘kfDr dk ç;ksx viokn gS] fu;e ughaA ¼iSjk 8½ ¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&mica/k }kjk mPp U;k;ky; dks ubZ ‘kfDr çnÙk ugha dh xbZ gS&;g varfuZfgr ‘kfDr gh O;ko`r dh xbZ gS tks lafgrk ds vf/kfu;eu ls iwoZ Hkh U;k;ky; dks çkIr FkhA ¼iSjk 8½ ¼8½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk&rhu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ç;qDr dh tk ldrh gSA blesa rhu] ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ifjdfYir gS ftuesa varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk ç;qDr dh tk ldrh gS] vFkkZr~] ¼1½ lafgrk ds v/khu vkns‘k çHkkoh djus ds fy, ¼2½ U;k;ky; dh çfØ;k ds nq#i;ksx ds fuokj.k ds fy, rFkk ¼3½ U;k;fgr vU;Fkk lqfuf‘pr djus ds fy,A varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk dk ç;ksx fofu;fer djus ds fy, vuE; vf/kdfFkr fd;k tkuk u laHko] u okaNuh; ghA ¼iSjk 8½ ¼9½ U;k;ky;&flfoy gks ;k nkafMd] çR;sd U;k;ky; dks U;k; ç‘kklu ds vuqØe esa U;k; djus rFkk vU;k; nwj djus dh varfuZfgr ‘kfDr gSA ¼10½ fof/kd lw=&
¼11½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&varfuZfgr ‘kfDr&lwpuk vkfn dk fof/kd otZu gks] tc vfHkdFkuksa ls vijk/k xfBr ugha gksrk gks] tc oS/k lk{; ugha gks rc dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr djus ds fy, ç;qDr dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 866 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 9½
¼12½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&‘kfDr&fojyksa esa fojyre ekeyksa esa vYi ç;ksx fd;k tkuk pkfg,&‘kfDr dh ifjiw.kZrk ds dkj.k gh mlds ç;ksx esa vR;f/kd lko/kkuh vko‘;d gSA 1992 lIyh- 1 ,l lh lh 335 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10½
¼13½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&mPp U;k;ky; fdlh Hkh çØe ij dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr dj ldrk gS&iDdk fu;e vf/kdfFkr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 892 rFkk , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 1 voyafcrA ¼ijk 11½
¼14½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&bfÙkykdrkZ ds fo#) vln~Hkko ds vfHkdFku&fdlh egRo ds ugha&bl vk/kkj ij dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 494] 1992 lIyh] 1 ,l lh lh 222] ¼1995½ 6 ,l lh lh 194] ¼1999½ 2 ,l lh lh 651] ¼1996½ 7 ,l lh lh 705] ¼1997½2 ,l lh lh 397] ¼1999½ 8 ,l lh lh 728] , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 1216 rFkk ¼2002½ 3 ,l lh lh 89 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 11½
Pasayat, J.--1. The State of Madhya Pradesh questions legality of judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench accepting the prayer made in terms of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') to quash the investigation and proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') in a case (Crime No. 116/94) registered by the Speical Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior. Seven petitioners, who are the respondents herein, had filed the petition to quash the investigation and the proceedings on the ground that while investigating into the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by present respondent No.1 Awadh Kishore Gupta (petitioner No.1 before the High Court and described as accused hereinafter), the income of the other respondents were not taken note of. Several documents were annexed to the petition to contend that there was no undisclosed income of and/or acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by the respondent No. 1 who at the relevant time was working as Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Before the High Court his wife was the petitioner No.2; and his sons and daughter were petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 respectively and petitioner No.7 was his father. It was their basic stand that the proceedings were continuing without grant of proper opportunity to them to explain their income and there was non-compliance with the requirements of the Act. The basic allegation against the accused was that he had acquired property beyond his known source of income thereby rendering him punishable under section 13(1) (e) of the Act.
2. Stand of the appellant State who was respondent before the High Court was that the matter was still under investigation and the investigating agency was examing the articles seized and the assets claimed by the accused and his relatives. As the matter was still under examination by the investigating agency, no case for quashing the investigation/further proceedings was made out. The High Court came to hold that the documents annexed to the petition, more particularly, the income-tax returns indicate that all the properties shown in the returns were fully explained to have been acquired from the known sources of income of the accused and his relatives and nothing has been found to have been acquired disproportionately to the income of accused. Properties acquired by his relatives could not have been taken for constituting the offence so far as accused is concerned. Reference was also made to a Will executed by accused's mother and it was concluded that there was nothing to show that the Will had taints of benami. It was held that the onus to prove a transaction as benami is on the person who asserts and has to be discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character. It was also held that the requirements of section 13(1) (e) clearly stipulated that an opportunity has to be given, and a government servant cannot be said to have failed to satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to his known sources of income in the absence of such opportunity. Accordingly it was held that nothing substantial had been collected though considerable time had elapsed to collect evidence to suggest that if prosecuted, the public servant would be liable to be convicted as there has been little progress in the investigation. With these observations, the investigation and further proceedings in the case registered were quashed. Properties seized from the accused were directed to be returned to him.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole approach of the High Court was erroneous. At the stage of considering an application for quashing the investigation or further proceedings, it is not permissible to proceed as if the Court was holding a trial and trying to sift evidence. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
