9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1632 - SC - Indian LawsPossession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income - preliminary inquiry before the registration of the crime done or not - delay in the completion of the investigation prejudicing the rights of the Accused Officer - HELD THAT - In the present case the FIR itself shows that the information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets of the Accused Officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein relevant information was available with the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with such disclosure he can proceed against the accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other manner on the basis of the credible information received by him. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR no offence is disclosed. The preliminary inquiry warranted in LALITA KUMARI VERSUS GOVT. OF UP. ORS. 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient. There are no merit in the reasonings recorded by the High Court in respect of contentions raised by the Accused Officer. The arguments raised by the Accused Officer cannot be accepted in quashing the proceedings under the Act - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Authorization to register the crime. 2. Informant as the investigating officer. 3. Necessity of a preliminary inquiry before the registration of the crime. 4. Requirement of sanction for prosecution. 5. Applicability of amended provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Detailed Analysis: 1. Authorization to Register the Crime: The High Court quashed the proceedings on the grounds that there was no proper authorization to register the crime and that the informant cannot be the investigating officer. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed. It held that the re-employment of Sri K. Sampath Kumar was valid under Article 162 of the Constitution, and thus, he had the authority to authorize the registration of the FIR. The Court emphasized that Sri K. Sampath Kumar was discharging his duties within the scope of his official authority, and his actions were valid under the de facto doctrine, which protects acts done by an officer under the color of lawful authority. 2. Informant as the Investigating Officer: The High Court's finding that the informant cannot be the investigating officer was based on the judgment in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, which was held to be prospective in Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court clarified that the criminal justice system requires balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecution, and thus, the High Court's order to quash the proceedings was not sustainable. 3. Necessity of a Preliminary Inquiry Before the Registration of the Crime: The Accused Officer argued that a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before lodging the FIR, referencing Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in all cases, including corruption cases. The Court noted that the FIR itself contained credible information about disproportionate assets, and thus, the registration of the FIR without a preliminary inquiry was justified. 4. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution: The Accused Officer contended that there was no sanction before filing the report. The Supreme Court held that sanction could be produced during the trial and was not necessary after the retirement of the Accused Officer. The Court cited K. Kalimuthu v. State by DSP, which held that the need for sanction could be determined at any stage of the proceedings. The lack of sanction was not a ground for quashing the proceedings. 5. Applicability of Amended Provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Accused Officer argued that the amended provisions of the Act should apply since the amendments came into force before the charge sheet was filed. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the offences were committed before the amendments, and thus, the provisions of the statute as it existed prior to the amendment would apply. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the proceedings against the Accused Officer and remitted the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings. The appeal filed by the State was allowed, and the appeal filed by the Accused Officer was dismissed.
|
