Summary
The Supreme Court restored an FIR under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a disproportionate-assets case which the Karnataka High Court had quashed for want of a preliminary enquiry by the Superintendent of Police. The second proviso to Section 17 requires only an order of an officer not below the rank of SP before investigation; a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is desirable but not mandatory, and where the SP's order rests on a detailed source report the requirement can be relaxed.
Issues
- Whether the second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires the Superintendent of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry before ordering investigation of an offence under Section 13(1)(b).
- Whether a preliminary enquiry is mandatory before registration of an FIR in a corruption case under the PC Act.
- Whether a public servant has a right to be heard or to explain alleged disproportionate assets before an FIR is registered.
Provisions considered
- Section 17 (second proviso), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Quoted in full. The second proviso requires that an offence under Section 13(1)(b) not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police; it does not speak of a preliminary enquiry. The SP's order directing registration of the FIR, passed on the basis of the DSP's source report, satisfied the proviso. (¶¶ 5, 8, 15)
- Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The offence of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income for which FIR No. 54/2023 was registered; there is no provision for a preliminary enquiry under Section 13. (¶¶ 2, 4, 8)
Held
- Neither Section 13 nor Section 17 of the PC Act provides for a preliminary enquiry, and the second proviso to Section 17 does not speak of one. It was Lalita Kumari, drawing on P. Sirajuddin, that placed corruption cases among the categories in which a preliminary enquiry 'may be made' before registration of an FIR. (¶ 8)
- Following State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (which applied Lalita Kumari and Managipet), a preliminary enquiry in corruption matters is desirable but not mandatory and the accused has no right to demand one; where a superior officer has before him a detailed and well-reasoned source information report which prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the preliminary enquiry may be avoided and the requirement relaxed. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The source report submitted by the DSP to the SP, which recorded a prima facie finding of assets disproportionate to known income to the extent of about Rs 6.64 crore over the check period from joining service in 1998 to 30.09.2023, was itself a kind of preliminary enquiry; the SP's order directing registration of the FIR was passed on that material, so no separate preliminary enquiry was mandated. (¶¶ 9, 10, 15)
- As held by a three-Judge Bench in CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, an accused public servant has no right to explain the alleged disproportionate assets before an FIR is filed; there is no inherent right to be heard at that stage. (¶ 14)
- The High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR; the appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Karnataka High Court's order dated 25.04.2024 quashing FIR No. 54/2023 set aside; interim orders vacated; pending applications disposed of.