Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka appealed against the Karnataka High Court's order quashing proceedings against a public servant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent, an Executive Engineer in BESCOM, was accused of acquiring disproportionate assets. An FIR was registered on 04.12.2023 under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on a source report. The respondent challenged the FIR before the High Court, arguing violation of the second proviso to Section 17, which requires investigation for offences under Section 13(1)(b) to be ordered by a police officer not below Superintendent of Police rank. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the Superintendent of Police had not conducted a preliminary enquiry before ordering investigation, thus lacking application of mind. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that preliminary enquiry is desirable but not mandatory. The Court examined whether Section 17 mandates preliminary enquiry. It referred to Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, which categorized corruption cases as those where preliminary enquiry 'may be made', indicating discretion. The Court also cited State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, which clarified that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in every case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court noted that the Superintendent of Police had passed the order based on a detailed source report dated 05.10.2023, which prima facie found disproportionate assets of Rs. 6,64,67,000. The Court held that when a superior officer has a detailed source report disclosing a cognizable offence, preliminary enquiry can be avoided. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's order, restoring the FIR and proceedings, and held that preliminary enquiry, while desirable, is not mandatory under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act - Preliminary Enquiry Not Mandatory - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2), 17 - High Court quashed FIR against public servant for disproportionate assets, holding that Superintendent of Police failed to conduct preliminary enquiry before ordering investigation - Supreme Court reversed, holding that preliminary enquiry is desirable but not mandatory under Section 17 - Court relied on Lalita Kumari and T.N. Sudhakar Reddy judgments which established that preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is discretionary - Held that detailed source report can substitute preliminary enquiry requirement (Paras 7-12) B) Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act - Superintendent of Police's Order Valid - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 17 - High Court found Superintendent of Police's order for FIR registration invalid due to lack of preliminary enquiry - Supreme Court held that Superintendent of Police's order dated 04.12.2023 was valid as it was based on detailed source report dated 05.10.2023 - Source report prima facie established disproportionate assets of Rs. 6,64,67,000 during check period 11.11.1998 to 30.09.2023 - Held that order satisfied Section 17 requirements as source report contained sufficient material for application of mind (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether preliminary enquiry is mandatory before registration of FIR for offences under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in light of second proviso to Section 17 of the Act
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 25.04.2024, and restored the FIR and proceedings against respondent no. 1
Law Points
- Preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is desirable but not mandatory under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Second proviso to Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act does not mandate preliminary enquiry
- Source report containing detailed information can substitute preliminary enquiry
- Superintendent of Police's order for FIR registration based on source report satisfies Section 17 requirements
