Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
ATUL SREEDHARAN, JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA, JJ.
Bhupendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondents
M.Cr.C. No. 3013 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 13(1)(e), 13(2) - 1835@iq-v-@fo-iq-lh-@2011, 1908@iq-v-@fo-iq-LFkk-@2011, 1835@iq-v-@fo-iq-lh-@2011, 1908@iq-v-@fo-iq-LFkk-@2011, 13@16 fnukafdr 10-03-2016, 25610400000163, 27]00]000, 8]50]000, 1]43]81]050, 34]32]652, 82]800, 3]11]01]605, 44]39]932, 22]19,996, 1965 fu;e 16¼3½, 1965 fu;e 17¼4½¼2½, 1965 fu;e 19¼2½, 1965 fu;e 14¼2½, 1965 fu;e 14&, 2004, 1965 fu;e 14&, 2004
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, was accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The investigating agency concluded that the petitioner did not possess disproportionate property. The Special Judge rejected the closure report and directed the investigating agency to seek sanction for prosecution of the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the closure report was not acceptable and there were grey areas in the case requiring further investigation. The court held that the Special Judge should have directed further investigation instead of rejecting the closure report and should have provided a speaking order indicating the material available for fair investigation.
Issues: The issues included the rejection of the closure report, the requirement for further investigation, and the need for a speaking order indicating the material available for fair investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the closure report was not sustainable and the matter should be sent back to the Special Judge for a fresh consideration of the closure report. The court emphasized the need for a speaking order to indicate the material available for fair investigation.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Special Judge was directed to consider the material produced by the investigating agency with the closure report and pass a speaking order referring to the material for fair investigation and rejecting the closure report.
ORDER :
Jagdish Prasad Gupta, J.
1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of the order dated 23/12/2017 passed by the Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Jabalpur whereby reports in terms of closure report filed by the respondent in connection with Crime No. 96/2011 under sections 13(1)(e), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter refer as PC Act) was rejected and the respondent was directed to submit the material before the sanctioning authority to grant sanction for prosecution of the applicant.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on the basis of secret enquiry, it was found that during the check period from 04/04/1988 to 29/08/2011, the applicant who was working as Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Therefore on 30/08/2011 the FIR of Crime No. 96/2011 under sections 13(1)(e), 13(2) of the PC Act was registered and investigation was conducted and the respondent raided 6 places relating to the applicant on the basis of 6 search warrants issued by the competent court and the applicant submitted his representations along with relevant documents to demonstrate that his assets are in accordance to his known sources of income. After investigation, the respondent/investigating agency came to the conclusion that the applicant has not possessed disproportionate property in comparison to his income from known sources. The respondent/investigating agency arrived at the conclusion that the income, assets and expenditure of the applicant was as under during the check period:-
INCOME OF THE PETITIONER AS PER INVESTIGATING AGENCY i.e. RESPONDENT
| Sr. No. | Source of Income | Amount |
| 1. | Salary prior to check period | Rs.82,800/- |
| 2. | Income derived from Salary during check period | Rs.34,32,652/- |
| 3. | Income through GPF | Rs.50,000/- |
| 4. | Interest received from Bank | Rs.4,99,674/- |
| 5. | Bank Loan | Rs.70,57,844/- |
| 6. | Income derived from LIC | Rs.4,78,866/- |
| 7. | Income from investment made in post Office Recurrent deposit | Rs.2,35,240/- |
| 8. | Income from renting properties | Nil |
| 9. | Income from Bonds and shares | Rs.82,680/- |
| 10. | Income derived from Agriculture activities | Rs.22,19,966/- |
| 11. | Income from sale of vehicle | Rs.80,000/- |
| 12. | Income from petitioner’s wife while being a proprietor of Century Engineering | Rs.1,98,450/- |
| 13. | Income of petitioner’s wife through her business of petrol pump, tanker etc. | Rs.1,66,83,433/- |
|
| Total | Rs.3,11,01,605/- |
EXPENDITURE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE INVESTIGATION AGENCY i.e. RESPONDENT
| Sr.No. | Expenditure | Amount |
| 1. | Expenditure prior to check period | Rs.55,200/- |
| 2. | Household expenditure | Rs.13,73,060/- |
| 3. | Expenditure on payment of GPF | Rs.50,000/- |
| 4. | Amount in bank accounts | Rs.26,32,506/- |
| 5. | Expenditure on payment of bank loan | Rs.3,85,000/- |
| 6. | Expenditure on premium paid in respect | Rs.6,11,398/- |
| 7. | Expenditure on payment in respect to recurring deposits | Rs.1,87,600/- |
| 8. | Expenditure on bonds and shares | Rs.38,500/- |
| 9. | Expenditure made on purchase of immovable assets | Rs.22,98,727/- |
| 10. | Expenditure on agriculture | Rs.11,09,983/- |
| 11. | Expenditure on purchase of vehicle | Rs.4,32,750/- |
| 12. | Inventory | Rs.7,83,500/- |
| 13. | Cash | Rs.1330/- |
| 14. | Expenditure on payment of TV loan by petitioner’s wife | Rs.51,600/- |
| 15. | Expenditure of petitioner’s wife in respect to her business of petrol pump tanker etc. | Rs.1,70,58,196/- |
| 16. | Expenditure on education of petitioner’s son | Rs.1,90,500/- |
|
| Total | Rs.2,72,59,850/- |
3. Based on the said conclusion of the investigation, after duly considering the explanation
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a speaking order to indicate the material available for fair investigation when rejecting a closure report.
The judgment emphasized the importance of providing reasoning in judicial orders and the impact of such orders on the investigating agency and accused persons.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a speaking order with relevant reasoning in judicial decisions, emphasizing the importance of recording reasons in judicial ord....
Point of Law : Since such a direction takes away the power of the sanctioning authority to take an independent position after applying, its mind upon the material and evidence collected as to whether....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the investigating agency's conclusion, arrived at after deep investigation, should be given due weight, and the court should not interfere if ....
The court emphasized the authority of the Special Judge to take cognizance without directing reinvestigation and the validity of the direction for sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198....
The duty of the Magistrate to consider all materials collected during the investigation before ordering further investigation.
The right to issue notice at the time of consideration of the Closure Report is given to the informant and none else.
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
