Summary
The Supreme Court upheld an Anti-Corruption Bureau notice seeking asset and income information during a pre-FIR open enquiry into alleged disproportionate assets. Such an enquiry was permissible to ascertain whether a cognizable offence was disclosed and could protect the public servant against a baseless prosecution. The notice was confined to clarification of the allegations; the resulting statement was not a statement under Section 160 CrPC, could not be used against the appellant at trial and was not to be treated as confessional. The appeal was dismissed with these safeguards.
Issues
- Whether the Anti-Corruption Bureau could conduct an open enquiry before registration of an FIR.
- What limits applied to the asset information and statement sought from the public servant.
Provisions considered
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applying Lalita Kumari, the Court distinguished mandatory registration when cognizable offending is disclosed from a permissible preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether such an offence is disclosed. (¶ 8-10.1)
- Article 20(3), Constitution of IndiaThe enquiry statement was confined to explanation of assets and income and was not to be treated as confessional; self-incriminatory confessional use would be impermissible. (¶ 11-14)
- Paragraph 15, Maharashtra State Anti-corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual of Instructions, 1968The open-enquiry procedure provided for recording both sides, collecting relevant documents and obtaining an explanation before reporting to the Director. (¶ 10-10.1)
Held
- An appropriate pre-FIR enquiry into allegations of a public servant acquiring disproportionate assets is permissible and desirable to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. It is not a substitute for statutory investigation: if the material discloses an offence, an FIR and investigation follow; a baseless complaint need not produce an FIR. (¶ 8-10.1)
- The requested asset, liability, income and expenditure information directly related to the allegations. Restricted to facilitating an explanation of assets and known income, the notice did not amount to a fishing or roving enquiry. (¶¶ 6, 11)
- The statement was neither a Section 160 statement nor a statement during a CrPC investigation and could not be used against the appellant at trial. It was solely to ascertain disclosure of a cognizable offence and allow clarification, and must not be treated as confessional. No guilt or obligation to stand trial was determined by dismissal of the challenge. (¶ 11-14)
Result
Appeal dismissed with clarifications limiting the enquiry and excluding treatment of the appellant’s statement as confessional.