NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has allowed investigation into disproportionate assets case involving a public servant, holding that there is no inherent right of a government officer to be heard before registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandra set aside High Court's April 25, 2024 order which quashed the entire criminal proceedings initiated against Channakeshava H D, in a case of disproportionate assets case.
Supreme Court Upholds FIR in Corruption Case Without Preliminary Enquiry
Allowing a plea by the Karnataka Lokayukta, the bench said, "We are of the considered opinion that the High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR in the present case".
No Prior Hearing Needed Before Filing FIR Under Prevention of Corruption Act: SC
The court also noted preliminary enquiry was not mandated in the present case, considering that detailed information was already there before the Superintendent of Police in the form of the source report.
The order passed by the SP, directing registration of FIR reflected that the SP had passed that order on the basis of material placed before him in the form of the source report, the court noted.
According to this source report, it was prima facie found that the then Executive Engineer had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period i.e. November 11, 1998 to September 30, 2023, to the tune of Rs 6,64,67,000.
Based on this source report, which is nothing but a kind of preliminary enquiry, an order was passed by the SP directing the registration of an FIR against him, senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and advocate Nishanth Patil said on behalf of Lokayukta.
Dealing with a writ petition, the High Court, however, quashed the FIR, holding that although before lodging of the FIR, orders did come from the Superintendent of Police but the SP had not conducted any preliminary enquiry before passing his orders and therefore, there was no application of mind.
The Lokayukta counsel submitted that a preliminary enquiry is desirable but not mandatory. The SP had passed an order on December 04, 2023 under Section 17 of the PC Act on consideration of relevant materials, including a source report of October 05, 2023.
There is no provision for a preliminary enquiry under Section 13 or Section 17 of the PC Act. The second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act does not speak of a preliminary enquiry, they said.
It was only in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2014) that this court had held that before proceeding against a public servant in matters of corruption, it is desirable to have a preliminary enquiry, they said.
Once a detailed source report is there before the SP, explaining the reasons for initiation of proceedings and when details are given, a formal preliminary enquiry may not be necessary as all the relevant material is already there before the SP, the counsel said.
The counsel also cited State of Karnataka Vs T N Sudhakar Reddy (2025) to contend that an enquiry before registration of FIR under PC Act is not mandatory.
The counsel also said this court has held that in matters of corruption a preliminary enquiry although desirable, but is not mandatory. In a case where a superior officer, based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, passes an order for registration of FIR, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the then Executive Engineer, contended he was never given a chance to explain his position before the registration of FIR. He argued that FIR has been used as an instrument to harass the public servant and this is a case where no prior notice or hearing was given to the officer, which could have taken place if a preliminary enquiry had been held.
Responding to this, Kamat cited a three-judge bench decision of this court in CBI Vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) where it was specifically stated that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain the alleged disproportionate assets before filing of an FIR.
"We are also of the opinion that this is the correct legal position as there is no inherent right of a public servant to be heard at this stage," the bench said, setting aside the HC's order.
The public servant, appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in 1998, was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in Bangalore Electricity Supply Corporation. It was alleged he had enriched himself illicitly and consequently, an FIR with Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Town (Bangalore) was registered on December 04, 2023 under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.
