The court upheld that a second FIR can be maintained if substantial new evidence or distinct allegations arise, confirming the validity of proceedings regarding disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.07/RCA-ACB-NZB/2022 of ACB Police Station, Nizamabad Range, registered for the offence under Section 13 (1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1 The case of the prosecution is that, consequent to the case registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 5/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020, for the offences under Sections 7 (a), 7(c) and 12 of the Act, and Sections 417 and 120-B read with 34 of IPC, searches were conducted on 25.11.2020 at the residence of the petitioner and two other accused and certain other locations, including Locker No.7 at Axis Bank, Kanteshwar Branch, Nizamabad, jointly held by the petitioner and his wife, wherein it is found that the petitioner is in possession of huge net cash of Rs.34,40,200/- apart from gold and silver, for which he could not account satisfactorily.

2.2 It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner while working as public servant from 2008 to till date, Accused Officer (AO) has acquired Assets in the shape of residential house, agriculture lands, gold, car, bike, bank balances and net cash in locker etc., total worth of about Rs.87,89,640/- on his name and in the name of his wife and daughter. The AO’s probable income from all known sources during the above said period is worked out to about Rs.89,14,047/-. Similarly, the AO’s probable expenditure during the above said period is worked out to about Rs.33,62,321/-. The likely savings of AO is thus Rs.55,51,726/-. As against the likely savings of about Rs.55,51,726/-, the AO was found in possession of assets valued about Rs.87,89,640/-. Thus, the AO is in possession of Disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.32,37,914/- (89,14,047 – 33,62,321). Hence, the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act.

2.3 In view of the above, a detailed report was submitted to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Telangana State, Hyderabad, to accord permission to register a case and to conduct investigation against the petitioner. Based on the report, the Director, ACB, TS, Hyderabad accorded permission to register a case under Section 13 (1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner vide proceedings in C.No.75/RCO-NZB/2020-S4, dated 23.11.2022. In view of the above orders and the act committed by the petitioner, the present case was registered for the aforesaid offence.

3. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Madhavilatha Katasani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner:

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that initially Crime No.5/RCO-ACB-NAB/2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7 (a)(c) and 12 of the Act and Sections 417 , 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, on the alleged ground of demand of bribe and acceptance of the same and the petitioner had approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.9027 of 2021 seeking to quash the proceedings in the above crime and this Court allowed the said Criminal Petition on 01.08