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 orders.

ORDER J. P. GUPTA, J. – This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Organization, Jabalpur against the order dated 29-1-2018 passed by the trial Court / Special Judge, Lokayukt, Jabalpur, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby the prayer for acceptance of the closure report filed after completion of the investigation in connection with Crime No. 54/10 registered against the respondent under sections 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization, Jabalpur, has been disallowed and Special Police Establishment Lokayukt has been directed to place all the original documents / records and the material collected during the investigation before the Sanctioning authority for granting sanction for prosecution of the respondent the then Executive Engineer in Upper Narmada Zone, under the Water Resources Department, Jabalpur as public servant.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that this revision has been preferred by the investigating agency who initially started investigation against the respondent with regard to having possession of disproportionate assets in comparison to the known source of income and in this regard, check period was assigned from the year 1981 upto 30-7-2010 and after investigation, the income of the respondent was considered, which is quoted herein-below : –

and the expenditure was found in following terms : –

Accordingly, the investigating agency arrived at the conclusion that after taking consideration of saving of the period before the check period which was Rs. 15,197/- and the income during the check period from known sources which was Rs. 1,38,95,366/-, the total income of the respondent was considered Rs. 1,39,10,563/- and during this period expenditure was considered Rs. 1,39,59,093/-. Accordingly, difference of disproportionate property was found Rs. 48,530/- in comparison to total income, which is less than 0.34%. While in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in V. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 48, 10% difference in comparison to disproportionate property may be ignored. Therefore, no case for prosecution of the respondent under sections 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 is made out and the closure report was filed.

3. Learned trial Court/Special Judge (Lokayukt) Jabalpur by the impugned order disallowed the prayer of the investigating agency for acceptance of the closure report and directed to submit material before the Sanctioning authority for granting sanction for prosecution of the respondent.

4. The applicant Lokayukt Organization has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has passed the order without going through the material available on record and the learned trial Court indirectly directed the investigating agency to file charge sheet and direction to seek sanction for prosecution in the matter is also patently illegal and the reasoning given by the trial Court for rejecting the prayer of the applicant is not relevant to the present case and learned trial Court has not assigned any concrete reason. Therefore, the order is non-speaking and liable to be set aside.

5. Here it is worth mentioning that the respondent has not challenged the aforesaid order. The investigating agency has assailed the impugned order.

6. Learned trial Court in the impugned order has mentioned that the investigating agency has kept the various income in the category of the income from known sources while with regard to the relevant income and expenditure no prior permission was taken in purchasing and selling of the property and no information was timely given to the department concerned, about which, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that in File-K relevant material is available to es