The court upheld the validity of the charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing that allegations of political victimization were unsubstantiated and the investigation must proceed.

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

26.03.2025

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents / State.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:

“A. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to produce the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioners.

B. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the final report bearing no. 06/2023 dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) and all consequent criminal proceedings in the light of justice and equity.

C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed.”

3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the Anti Corruption Bureau registered FIR in which it has been stated that the total salary of the Petitioner No. 1 from 03/03/2001 to 31/12/2019 comes to Rs. 68,89,344/- and that of Petitioner No. 1's wife has been stated to be Rs. 23,60,845/-. It is alleged by the respondent agency that the Petitioner No 1. and his wife owns properties valued at Rs 1,65,82,400/- and have given the details of 6 properties owned by the couple. Out of these 6 properties, one of the property situated at village Tendua, Tehsil Nawagarh has been estimated to be of Rs. 1,10,00,000 (30,00,000 for the land and 80,00,000 for the alleged development). Further, the petitioner No.1 has invested Rs.22,31,047/- in the insurance policies and has invested Rs.5,50,000/- in miscellaneous expenses. As such, case was registered against the petitioners, in pursuance of which, final report was filed by the Economic Offence Wing bearing no. 06/2023 dated 28.08.2023 under Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 and 1^st Additional Sessions Judge against the Petitioners before the Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur registered as Case No. 04/2023. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 has an unblemished, clean and clear service record under his belt and is ready to face any inquiry/investigation which is initiated against the Petitioner no 1 under the four corners of statutory and constitutional framework however the respondents are proceeding in an unjust, unfair, arbitrary and unconstitutional manner with ulterior and oblique motive. The Petitioner No. 2 was not arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R but later on just to drag the family she has been made accused in the Final Report. Further, this Hon'ble Court in similar facts and circumstances quashed the proceedings in CRMP 1488/2023, CRMP 2747/2023, CRMP 683/2024 (Gurjinder Pal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Further, the entire final report is absolutely without jurisdiction in absence of the valid previous approval granted under section 17(a) of the prevention of Corruption act, 2018. Prima facie, the entire action of the State Government by the then regime is the best example of political victimization time and again Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued guidelines that an officer should not be treated for political bias until and unless there is a strong reason and belief against the same. The entire final report appears to be a case of malicious prosecution against the Petitioner no 1 with an oblique for personal vengeance. The FIR appears to have been registered with only intention to rope an officer who could not place himself in the good books of the old regime Because, the action of the respondent State in lodging criminal cases one after another without there being principles following of the natural justice and in a haste goes to show that the then regime was hell bent to punish the Petitioner no 1 for reasons best known to them. The approach of the State and manner in proceeding with the multiple FIRs shows that there was no prima facie material where allegations were levelled. There is no explanation in the entire final report whatsoever as to how an officer of Class