Karnataka High Court
Sri Mune Gowda N vs State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4900 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI MUNEGOWDA N.,
S/O SRI C.P.NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.262
NEAR NANDI CROSS
YALUVALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 102.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHARATH GOWDA G. B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LOKAYUKTA TOWN POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 102
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI LETHIF B., SPL.PP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.07/2023
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
13(1)(b) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA BY ARRAYING THE PETITIONER AS THE
ACCUSED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
registration of crime in Crime No.7 of 2023 for offences punishable
under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and pending before the Principal
District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.
3
2. Heard Sri Sharath Gowda G.B. learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri Lethif B, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as Senior Assistant at the office
of the Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture in the year 2007
and at the relevant point in time was promoted and working as
Deputy Director of Horticulture. On 06-11-2023, it appears that the
respondent/Lokayukta drew up a source report against the
petitioner alleging that the petitioner has amassed wealth in sum of
`1,63,99,000/- beyond the known source of his income which works
out 105.80% of disproportionate assets. On 04-12-2023 the source
report was placed before the Superintendent of Police who accorded
permission under Section 17 of the Act to register the crime.
Therefore, it becomes a crime in Crime No.7 of 2023. The
registration of the crime is what has drawn the petitioner to this
Court in the subject petition.
4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the respondent ought to have conducted a preliminary
inquiry before FIR could be registered as it is the mandate of law in
terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - (2021) 5 SCC
469 and LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR
PRADESH - (2014) 2 SCC 1. He would also place reliance upon the
judgment of the coordinate Bench in the case of S. SATHISH AND
OTHERS v. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE INSPECTOR
AND OTHERS1. On merits of the matter, the learned counsel
would seek to contend that the petitioner has separated from his
first wife in the year 2014 itself and has married for the second
time after divorce. The properties that were allegedly owned by the
first wife are said to be the petitioner's in the year 2024 in the
source report. The second wife's earnings are completely ignored
while drawing up the source report. It is his submission that if a
preliminary inquiry would be conducted prior to registration of
crime, all these would come to light or while ordering registration of
FIR if the concerned authority had applied its mind, it would have
1
W.P.No.22483 of 2023 & connected cases decided on 2nd July 2024
5
obviated registration of FIR or bringing down the disproportionate
assets within the permissible limit. Since the order on the source
report is mechanically passed, the entire proceedings are vitiated.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri B.Lethif representing
the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to
contend that the order under Section 17 of the Act does bear
application of mind; that the Apex Court in several judgments has
clarified that preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before
registration of FIR in corruption cases. A FIR will not vitiate because
preliminary inquiry has not been conducted. It is his submission
that source report cannot be scrutinized by the High Court donning
the role of Chartered Accountant in exercise of power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. He would seek to place reliance upon several
documents that were unearthed at the time search was conducted
on the house of the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
6
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The source
report that is drawn on 06-11-2023 by the Police Inspector does
contain certain entries of the first wife after the separation and has
ignored all the income of the second wife as contended by the
petitioner. On the source report, the order passed by the
Superintendent of Police is necessary to be noticed. It reads as
follows:
"KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA.
Sub: Possession of property disproportionate to the
know sources of income by Sri.Munegowda N.,
Deputy Director, Horticulture Department,
Ramanagara District.
Ref: 1. Source Report submitted by Sri. Veerendra
Kumar P., Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Chikkaballapura,
Dated:06-11-2023.
2. Inspector General of Police Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru memo No:LOK/IGP/
MEMO/SIR-77/2023, Dated:28-11-2023.
****
I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri.
Veerendra Kumar P., Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Chikkaballapura relating to his receipt of
credible information that Sri.Munegowda N., Deputy Director,
Horticulture Department, Ramanagara District has acquired
property disproportionate to his known source of income to the
extent of Rs.1,63,99,000/- and there by committed an offence
7
under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of corruption
Act-1988 (Amendment Act-2018).
From the material placed before me and with application
of my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out
against Sri.Munegowda N., Deputy Director, Horticulture
Department, Ramanagara District warranting a statutory
investigation for an offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of corruption Act-1988 (Amendment Act-2018).
ORDER NO.KLA/INV/CBP/SP/02/2023,
DATED 04-12-2023
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
Provision of Section 17 of the Prevention of corruption Act-1988,
I, Dr.Ram L.Arasiddi, Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Chikkaballapur District order Sri Mohan
N.Heddanavar Police Inspector-1, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Chikkaballapur District to register case under section 13(1)(b)
r/w 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act-1988 (Amendment
Act-2018) against Sri.Munegowda N., Deputy Director,
Horticulture Department, Ramanagara District and to investigate
the said case.
Further, I authorize Sri.Mohan N. Heddanavar, Police
Inspector-1, Karnataka Lokayukta, Chikkaballapur District under
the provisions of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act-
1988, to inspect the banker's Books in so far as it relates to the
accounts of the persons suspected to be holding money on
behalf of the said Sri.Munegowda N., Deputy Director,
Horticulture Department, Ramanagara District and to take or
cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries there
from and the bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the
Police officer Sri.Mohan N. Heddanavar, Police Inspector-1,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Chikkaballapur District in the Excise of
the powers under the said section of law.
Sd/-
(Dr.Ram L.Arasiddi)
Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Chikkaballapur."
8
Identical orders passed in several cases have become subject
matter of proceedings before the coordinate Bench in the case of
S. SATHISH's case supra. The coordinate Bench in the said case
has held as follows:
".... .... ...."
7. In support, reliance is placed on the following
decisions:
a) State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal - 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335.
b) CBI -vs- Hemendhra Reddy - AIR OnLine 2023 SC
468.
c) State of Karnataka -vs- B Narayana Reddy - 2001
SCC OnLine Kar 673.
d) Udaya Ravi -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
104906/2023.
e) K L Gangadharaiah -vs- The Karnataka Lokayukta
Police (WP No.11822/2023 DD 28.7.2023):
8. In a case involving disproportionate assets,
conducting a preliminary *enquiry is not only desirable but
mandatory. This preliminary *enquiry is crucial to assess the
credibility and veracity of the information received. It ensures
that only genuine cases of disproportionate assets proceed to a
full investigation. Furthermore, it serves to protect the
reputation of individuals from unfounded accusations. In
support, a reliance is placed on the following decisions:
9
a) Charansingh v. The State of Maharashtra and
others ((2021) 5 SCC 469)
b) Mr. Navneet Mohan N v. The Station Officer and
Another (W.P.No.43817/2018)
c) J. Gnanendra Kumar v. The Chief Secretary and
Another (W.P.No.8170/2022)
d) Balakrishna H.N v. The State of Karnataka
(W.P.No.15886/2022
e) Sri L. Satish Kumar v. The State of Karnataka
(W.P.No.6732/2023)
9. Additionally, Sri Sandesh J Chouta, learned Senior
Counsel, argued that there is a clear distinction between the
registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section
154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and the
subsequent investigation under Section 156 of the Cr.PC. The
restriction imposed by the second proviso to Section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pertains to the conduct of
the investigation and not the registration of an FIR under
Section 154. Upon receiving information indicating that a public
servant is in possession of assets disproportionate to their
known income, the police inspector is mandated to register the
FIR immediately. Subsequently, the inspector should submit the
source report along with the preliminary enquiry report and FIR
to the concerned Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the
registration of the FIR post authorization has resulted in
vitiating the investigation. In support, reliance is placed on the
following decisions:
a) Kailash Vijayavargiya -vs- Rajalakshmi Chaudhari
and other - 2023 SCC OnOLine SC 569.
b) Lalitha Kumari -vs- State of UP - (2014) 2 SCC 1.
c) State of MP -vs- Ram Singh - (2000) 5 SCC 88.
d) Udaya Ravi -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
104906/2023.
10
e) N Satish Babu -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
3107/2024.
f) G M Shivakumar -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
17248/2022.
g) Sudhakar Reddy -vs- State of Karnataka - Crl.LP
No.13460/2023.
h) Circular dated 11.5.2023 issued by the Director
General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta.
i) Ram Singh -vs- State of MP - (2000) 5 SCC 88.
10. Submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent - Lokayukta is as follows:-
i) The mere fact that the orders contain text similar
to other orders issued under the second proviso to Section 17 of
the Act, 1988, does not, by itself, demonstrate a lack of
consideration. The orders issued under this provision, which
include details such as the names of the accused, the nature of
the offense, the authority of the Superintendent of Police to
delegate investigative power to a junior officer, and the extent
of the disproportionate assets involved, clearly indicate
thoughtful deliberation. Therefore, the petitioners' claim that
these orders were issued mechanically and lack the necessary
application of mind is unfounded.
ii) Sri Venkatesh Arabatti, learned counsel
representing the Lokayuktha further argued that the case of K.
L. Gangadharaiah, is not relevant to the present circumstances.
The cited decision was based on several typographical and other
errors found in the orders in that specific case, which is not the
situation here. Furthermore, the said decision is subject matter
of challenge before the Apex Court.
11. In support, reliance is placed on the following
decisions:-
a) S K Paramesh -vs- State of Karnataka - CrlP
No.464/2013 (DD 23.5.2013).
11
b) State of M P -vs- Ram Singh - (2000) 5 SCC 88
c) Sri D M Padmanabha & ors. -vs- The State by
Karnatak Lokayuktha ( WP No.2413/2024) (DD 27.5.2024)
12. The conducting of a preliminary *enquiry before
registering an FIR is not a mandatory requirement. The
necessity of such an *enquiry depends on the specific facts and
circumstances of each case. The petitioners have not
demonstrated how their rights were adversely affected by the
absence of a preliminary *enquiry prior to registration of the
FIR. When the information received indicates the commission of
a cognizable offense, an FIR can be registered without
conducting a preliminary *enquiry. In support, reliance is
placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
a) CBI -vs- Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi -
(2021) 18 SCC 135.
b) State through DSP -vs- R Soundirarasu - (2023) 6
SCC 768.
13. Sri Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel, argues that
an FIR registered by a police inspector can only be done so after
the inspector has been authorized to investigate the offense
under the second provision of Section 17. According to Section
157 of the Cr.P.C., an Investigating Officer can register an FIR
only if they are empowered to do so under Section 156 of the
Cr.P.C. Consequently, the argument that the registration of the
FIR must precede the authorization to investigate lacks any
substance.
14. The arguments presented by the learned counsel
for both parties have been duly considered.
15. The points that arise for consideration are as
follows:
i) Whether the orders of the Superintendent
of Police passed under second proviso to Section 17
authorizing to investigate against criminal misconduct
of intentional illicit enrichment during the period of
12
office under Section 13(1)(b), should be elaborate
with clearly discernible reasons?
ii) Whether the conducting of preliminary
enquiry is mandatory before registering the FIRs or
the petitioners have made out any case for the
desirability to conduct preliminary enquiry?
iii) Whether the registration of the FIRs must
precede the orders authorizing to investigate?
Point No.(i):
16. Before addressing this point, it is pertinent to cite
the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, as
well as this Court, with reference to the said provisions.
17. Section 17 is reproduced as hereunder -
CHAPTER IV - INVESTIGATION INTO CASES UNDER THE ACT
17. Persons authorised to investigate.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the
rank,-
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, of an Inspector of police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay,
Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any
other metropolitan area notified as such
under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), of an
Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of
Police or a police officer of equivalent rank,
Shall investigate any offence punishable under this
Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make
any arrest therefore without a warrant:
13
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of
an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State
Government in this behalf by general or special order, he
may also investigate any such offense without the order of a
Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as
the case may be, or make arrest therefore without a
warrant:
Provided further that an offense referred to in
[clause (b) of sub-section (1)] of section 13 shall not be
investigated without the order of a police officer not below
the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
18. In the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court,
with reference to Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947--which corresponds to Section 17 of the Act, 1988--
the Apex Court ruled that the second proviso to Section 5-A is
mandatory, not merely directory. The Apex Court emphasized
that the investigation by the designated police officer is the rule,
while the investigation by an officer of a lower rank is an
exception. Moreover, the requirement to disclose the reasons for
granting permission for such an exception is a significant legal
obligation. This disclosure ensures transparency and
accountability in the investigative process, reinforcing the
integrity of the legal framework governing corruption
investigations.
19. In the case of State of MP v. Ramsingh (supra),
the Apex Court ruled that an order of the Superintendent of
Police (SP), even when in a proforma format, which indicates
the name of the accused, the FIR number, the nature of the
offense, and the authority of the SP to permit a junior officer to
investigate, along with the timing between the registration of
the FIR and the issuance of the order, demonstrates the
application of mind. Furthermore, the Apex Court emphasized
that procedural delays and legal technicalities should not be
allowed to defeat the objectives of the Act. The overarching
public interest and social purpose of the Act must be considered
while interpreting its various provisions and deciding cases
under it.
20. In the case of State of Karnataka v. B Narayana
Reddy (supra), the coordinate Bench of the Court, while
referring to the Bhajanlal and Ramsingh cases, held that
14
reasons must be provided for entrusting an investigation to a
lower-ranking officer when the Superintendent of Police issues
an order under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act,
1988. In this case, the learned Single Judge discharged the
petitioner from the offense punishable under Section 13(1)(e)
read with Section 13(2) of the Act, concluding that the orders
passed by the Superintendent of Police were deficient in reasons
for assigning the investigation to a lower-ranking officer,
specifically an Inspector of Police.
21. Therefore, it is evident that the decision of the
Apex Court in Ramsingh's case (supra) should be confined to
the specific facts of that case. The principle established in
Bhajanlal's case remains authoritative: the requirement to
provide reasons for entrusting an investigation to a lower-
ranking officer is imperative. This ensures transparency and
accountability in the investigative process, aligning with the
fundamental legal framework designed to combat corruption.
22. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
S.K. Parmesh v. State of Karnataka (in Crl P. No.
464/2013 : DD 23.05.2013) relying on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh (supra) held that sufficient
attention to detail is devoted in entrusting the investigation to
the police inspector although the authorization order being a
typed proforma.
23. In the case of D. M. Padmanabha and ors. v.
The State of Karnataka by Lokayuktha (WP
No.2413/2024 : DD 27.5.2024), the coordinate Bench of
this Court ruled that perusal of the order of the Superintendent
of Police would go to show that, along with the source report,
the material which was the basis for the preparation of the
source report was also made available and upon verification of
the same, being satisfied that there was a case made out for
investigation for the alleged offenses, the SP of the police
proceeded to pass an order in exercise of the power under
Section 17 of the PC Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
was no application of mind by the SP of the Police before
passing an order under the second proviso of section 17 of the
PC Act.
15
24. In the case of Babu Rao Chinchanasur v. State
by Lokayuktha 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10386 : 2014 Cri LJ
3310, the coordinate Bench of this Court has ruled as follows:
1) A Special Judge has to apply his mind to
any complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC to make out
whether the complainant discloses any offense or not,
and thereafter, order an investigation under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the discretion given to the
police officer to determine the existence of any
sufficient ground to enter on an investigation is taken
away by the issuance of order under Section 156(3).
2) It further observed that with respect to
the second proviso to Section 17, the Superintendent
of Police or an officer superior to him is required to
apply his mind to the information and thereafter, come
to an opinion that the investigation on such allegations
is necessary.
3) The second proviso to Section 17 of the
Act is but an additional safeguard and protection in
relation to the investigation of the offense referred to
in Clause (e) of sub-Section 1 of Section 13, and that
when a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
alleging the said offence is made, it shall be required
to be referred to a police officer of the rank of a rank
not less than Superintendent of Police, who shall on
application of his mind and on satisfaction that an
investigation is necessary, direct an investigation into
the allegations in the complaint. Furthermore, it held
that if this mode were to not be adopted, it would
defeat the statutory protection enshrined in the
second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988.
25. In the case of State through CBI v Hemendhra
Reddy AIR Online 2023,SC 468 the Apex Court has ruled that
the second proviso is in the nature of additional safeguard for
the public servant who are accused of the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988 against the
investigation without the knowledge and consent of a superior
police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of police. A
superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of police is
16
required to pass an order before an investigation and before
directing such investigation, is required to apply his mind to the
information and come to an opinion that the investigation on
such allegations is necessary.
26. In the case of K.L. Gangadhariah v. Karnataka
Lokayukta (WP 1182/2023 DD 28.07.2023) a coordinate
bench of this Court had held that the action of Lokayuktha must
inspire confidence of the Court and that the duration of the
check period must either end with the date of registration of the
crime or must immediately precede the date of registration of
crime. The source information report must be scrutinized in its
entirety, as a faulty (meaning inaccurate herein) check period
shall inevitably render the source information report faulty. It is
relevant to note that this judgment is subject matter of
challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
27. I am in complete concurrence with the view taken
by the coordinate bench that where an order is issued under
the second proviso of section 17 of the Act, 1988 directed an
investigation without arriving at a logical reason as to why the
"clock of the check period in the source information report"
came to an abrupt halt 8 years prior to the date of presentation
of the source report and registration of the crime, it would
constitute an incurable transgression of a substantive right
vested in the accused public servant under the second proviso
of Section 17 of the Act, 1988. Interpreting the wordings used in
the second proviso, the Apex Court in the much earlier case of
Inspector of Police v. Surya Sankaram Karri 2006 7 SCC
172 had held the second proviso of the Section 17 of the said
Act to be of a mandatory character and order under the said
proviso had to be passed in writing.
28. The proviso therefore, imposes a graver obligation
on the Superintendent of the Police to verify the contents of the
source information report and other relevant materials so as to
arrive at a prima facie conclusion that there exists sufficient
ground to investigate a case. An order based on the summary
reading in a routine manner, for a fleeting moment does not cut
muster with the legislative intent and object of preventing
frivolous and speculative investigation and irreparable harm
caused to the reputation of public servants by motivated,
reckless and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal misconduct.
17
Thus, the order issued under the second proviso must be made
upon a comprehensive scrutiny of the source information report.
29. In view of decisions of the Apex Court and of this
Court in cases alluded to above, the ratio enunciated is
summarized as follows:
1) The second proviso is mandatory, not merely
directory. Investigation by the designated police
officer is the Rule, while the investigation by an
officer of a lower rank is an exception.
2) It is imperative that the reasons for granting
permission to a lower rank officer to conduct the
investigation be disclosed. The requirement
ensures transparency and accountability in the
investigative process.
3) The order under second proviso must demonstrate
the application of mind even if it is in a proforma
format.
4) The decision in Ram Singh case should be confined
to its specific facts, and the ratio enunciated in
Bhajanlal case remains authoritative.
5) The order under second proviso must disclose that
the material forming the basis of the source report
was verified and there was prima facie satisfaction
that the case is made out for investigation.
30. In light of the above precedents and findings
enunciated above, the true meaning of an order made under the
second proviso to the Section 17 of the Act, 1988 requires to be
considered.
31. An order means a conclusive opinion supported by
reasons. A person affected by an order has an opportunity to
understand the reasons behind it and therefore, aligns with
principles of natural justice. Moreover, it ensures transparency,
accountability and fairness. Requiring reasons acts as a
safeguard against arbitrary or abusive use of investigative
powers. It prevents authorities from conducting investigations
18
based solely on speculation or personal bias, thereby protecting
individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their privacy or
affairs.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel
Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I
Circle and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407 referencing the
observations made in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519 held that reasons are the heartbeat
of every conclusion as it introduces clarity in the order. It
further continued to underscore the importance of reasons in an
order as an objective expression of an opinion that stands the
tests of judicial review. Furthermore, it evidences application of
mind, and is in congruence with the time honored principles of
natural justice.
33. In the case of Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing,
Kota v. M/s Shukla & Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785, where
an appeal was preferred against the dismissal of a revision
petition by the High Court in a one line cryptic order, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded the doctrine of 'audi alteram
partem' into 3 essential ingredients - firstly, a person against
who an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely
to be adversely affected must be granted an opportunity of
being heard; secondly, the concerned authority should provide a
fair and transparent procedure; and lastly, the authority must
apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned order.
34. It further held that "reasons are the soul of
orders", and "non-recording of reasons could lead to dual
infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party
and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper
administration of justice." It further held that these principles
were applicable not only to administrative and executive actions
but also to judicial pronouncements.
35. In Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventez
Investments and Holdings Ltd. and Ors (2019) 16 SCC
610, where the Apex Court was arrested with the subject of
issuance of process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., it observed
that "to be summoned / to appear before the criminal court as
an accused is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and
19
reputation in the society" and that a criminal case cannot be
registered as a matter of course on a complaint filed otherwise
than on a police report, but on application of mind as to whether
the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients
of the offense and whether there are sufficient grounds for
proceeding against the accused.
36. It further observed that the Magistrate before
taking cognizance must on application of mind, be prima facie
satisfied on scrutiny and assessment of the allegations in the
complaint, the statement of the complainant and other materials
along with the record of the case as to whether there exists
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
37. In the present cases, the orders passed under
second proviso to Section 17 are extracted as follows.
WP.NO.22483/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTA, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR.
I have gone through the source report submitted by Smt.
Renuka.A.V, P.I, KLA, Kolar, relating to her receipt of credible
information that Sri.N.Venkatesh, E.O, Bangatpet Taluk panchayath,
kolar district, has acquired properties disproportionate to his known
source of income to the extent of Rs.1,09,52,291/- with extent of
108% and thereby committed an offence U/s 13(1) (b) R/W 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988. (Amendment-2018).
From the material placed before me and with the application
of my mind, I am satisfied that a prima facie case is made out
against Sri. N.Venkatesh, E.O, Bangarpet Taluk panchayath,
warranting a statutory investigation for and offence U/s 13(1)(b)R/W
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 (Amendment-2018).
ORDER NO.LOK/INV(G) KLR/SP/01/2023,
DATED:21/04/2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under the
provisions of section 17(c) of the prevention of corruption Act-1988,
(Amendment-2018), I B.K.Umesh, Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Kolar, order that Sri.V. Suryanarayana Rao
DySP, KLA, Kolar to register a case under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988(amendment-2018) against
20
AGO Sri. N.Venkatesh, E.O, Bangarpet Taluk panchayath and to
investigate the said case. I know Sri. V. Suryanarayana Rao, Deputy
Superintendent of police and he is having the knowledge of
investigation of the cases registered under P.C act. And also he is
having previous experience of investigation of disproportionate of
asset cases.
Further, I authorise Sri. V.Suryanarayana Rao, Dy.SP, KLA,
Kolar, under the Provisions of section 18 of the P.C.Act-1988 to
inspect the banker books in so for as it relates to the accounts of the
persons suspected to be holding money on behalf the said. AGO
Sri.N.Venkatesh E.O, Bangar pet taluk panchayath, and take or
cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries there from
and the bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the Police Officer
Sri.V.Suryanarayana Rao, KLA Kolar in the powers under the said
section of law.
Given under my Signature and seal of this Office on
21/04/2023.
Crl.p.No.514/2024:
Source Report submitted by Sri.RAVIKUMAR.A, Police
Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru P.S. Dated: 08.05.2023
I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri.
RAVIKUMAR.A, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru.
relating to his receipt of credible information that Sri A.Nagesh,
Assistant Executive Engineer, Mysuru Urban Development Authority,
Mysuru has acquired properties disproportionate to his known source
of income to the extent of Rs. 1,38,50,000-00 and thereby
committed an offence under section 13(1) (b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, (Amendment Act 2018)
From the material placed before me and with application of
my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out against
Sri A.Nagesh, Assistant Executive Engineer, Mysuru urban
development authority, Mysuru Warranting a statutory investigation
for an offence under section 13(1) (b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988, (Amendment Act 2018)
ORDER NO.KLA/MYS/SP/INV/MYSURU/03/2023, DATED
30.05.2023.
Therefore by virtue of the power vested in me under
provisions of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988,
(Amendment Act 2018) I, S. Sureshbabu, Superintendent of Police,
21
Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru Division, Mysuru order that Sri
Malteesh S.K. Deputy Superintendent of Police-2, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Mysuru Station Mysuru, to register a case under Section
13(1) (b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988,
(Amendment Act 2018) against Sri A.Nagesh, Assistant Executive
Engineer, Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru, and to
investigate the said case. I know Urban Desh S.K. Deputy
Superintendent of Police-2 and he is having the knowlegde of
investigation of the cases registered under P.C Act and also he is
having previous experience of investigation of disproportionate Asset
cases.
Further I authorise Sri Malteesh S.K. Deputy Superintendent
of Police-2, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru Station Mysuru, under the
provision of the section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988,
(Amendment Act 2018) to inspect the bank accounts in so for as it
related to the accounts of the persons suspected to be holding
money on behalf of the said A.Nagesh, Assistant Executive Engineer,
Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru and to take or cause
to be taken certified copies of the relevant statements of bank
accounts there from and the bankers concerned shall be bound to
assist the police officer Sri Malteesh S.K. Deputy Superintendent of
Police-2, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru Station Mysuru in the
exercise of the power under the said section of law.
WP.no.19512/2022:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, BANGALORE CITY
Sub: Possession of properties disproportionate to known
source of income by Sri Shivakumar B.K, Additional Director, of
commerce and Industry, Department, Khanija bhavan Bengaluru.
Ref: Source Report submitted by Sri Nayaz Baig. Police
Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore City P.S, Dated 08-03-
2022.
I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri Nayaz
Baig, Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore City P.S,
relating to his receipt of credible information that Sri Shivakumar.B
K. Additional Director, commerce and Industry Department, Khanija
bhavan Bengaluru has acquired properties disproportionate to his
known source of income to the extent of Rs. 3,42,76,000-00 and
there by committed an offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
22
From the material placed before me and with application of
my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out Sri
Shivakumar B.K, Additional Director, commerce and Industry
Department, Khanija bhavan Bengaluru, Warranting a statutory
investigation for an offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
ORDER NO.ACB/INV/B.CITY/SP/16/2022, DATED 15.03.2022
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, I,
Yatish chandra.G.H. IPS, Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Bangalore City Divison, Bangalore order that Sri K.Ravi
Shankar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bangalore City Police Station, Bangalore to register a case under
Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
against Sri Shivakumar.B.K. Additional Director, commerce and
Industry Department, Khanija bhavan Bengaluru and to investigate
the said case. I know Sri. K Ravi Shankar, Deputy Superintendent of
Police and he is having the knowledge of Investigation of the cases
registered under P.C. Act and also he is having previous experience
of investigation of disproportionate Asset cases.
Further I authorize Sri K.Ravi Shankar, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore City
Police Station, Bangalore, under the provisions of the section 18 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to inspect the bank accounts
in so far as it relates to the accounts of the persons suspected to be
holding money on behalf of the said Sri Shivakumar.B.K, Additional
Director, commerce and Industry Department, Khanija bhavan
Bengaluru and to take or cause to be taken certified copies of the
relevant statements of bank accounts there from and the bankers
concerned shall be bound to assist the police officer Sri K. Ravi
Shankar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bangalore City Police Station, Bangalore, in the exercise of the
powers under the said section of law.
Crl.p.No.9086/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR.
Sub: Possession of property disproportionate to the known
Source of income by AGO Sri. N.Venkatesh, E.O, Bangarpet Taluk
panchayath, Kolar District. R/O of Bangarpet Town.
23
Ref: 1)Source Report submitted by Smt. Renuka A.V, PI,
KLA Kolar, dated: 24/03/2023.
2) Lok/IGP/MEMO/SIR-08/2023 Dated: 20.04.2023
I have gone though the source report submitted by Smt
Renuka A.V, P.I. KLA, Kolar, relating to her receipt of credible
information that Sri. N. Venkatesh, E.O, Bangatpet Taluk
panchayath, kolar district, has acquired properties disproportionate
to his known source of income to the extent of Rs.1,09,52,291/- with
extent of 108 % and thereby committed an offence U/s 13(1) (b)
R/W 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988. (Amendment-
2018).
From the material placed before me and with the application
of my mind, I am satisfied that a prima facie case is made out
against Sri. N.Venkatesh, E.O, Bangarpet Taluk panchayath,
warranting a statutory investigation for an offence U/s 13(1)(b)R/w
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 (Amendment-2018).
ORDER NO.LOK/INV(G) KLR/SP/01/2023,
DATED:21/04/2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under the
provisions of section 17(c) of the prevention of corruption Act-1988,
(Amendment-2018), I B.K.Umesh, Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Kolar, order that Sri.V. Suryanarayana Rao
DySP, KLA, Kolar to register a case under section 13(1) (b) r/w
13(7) of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 (amendment-2018)
against AGO Sri. Venkatesh, E.O, Bangarpet Taluk panchayath and
to investigate the said case. I know Sri. V Suryanarayana Rao,
Deputy Superintendent of police and he is having The knowledge of
investigation of the cases registered under P.C act. And also he is
having previous experience of investigation of disproportionate of
asset cases.
Further, I authorise Sri. V. Suryanarayana Rao, Dy SP, KLA,
Kolar, under the Provisions of section 18 of the P.C.Act-1988 to
inspect the banker books in so for as it relates to the accounts of the
persons suspected to be holding money on behalf of the said. AGO
Sri.N.Venkatesh E.O, Bangar pet taluk panchayath, and take or
cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries there from
and the bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the Police Officer
Sri. V. Suryanarayana Rao, KLA Kolar in the powers under the said
section of law.
Given under my Signature and seal of this Office on
21/04/2023.
24
wp.no.19662/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE-2
KARANATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE CITY.
Sub: Possession of properties disproportionate to known
source of income by Sri Shivaraju 5/o Basavegowda, Tahasildar
Grade-2, Revene Department, M.S Building, Bengaluru
Ref: Source Report submitted by Smt.Umadevi R, DYSP,
Kamataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore City P.S, Dated 14.08.2023.
I have gone through the source report submitted by Smt
Umadevi. R. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore City P.S. relating to her receipt of credible information
that Sri Shivaraju S/o Basavegowda, Tahasildar Grade-2, Revenue
Department, M.S Building. Bengaluru has acquired properties
disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of
Rs.2.95,55,000/- and thereby committed an offence under section
13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
From the material placed before me and with application of
my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out against
Sri Shivaraju S/o Basavegowda, Tahasildar Grade-2. Revenue
Department, M.S Building. Bengaluru warranting a statutory
investigation for an offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
ORDER NO.KLA/INV/BCD/SP-2/08/2023, DATED
16.08.2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. I,
Ashok K.V., Superintendent of Police-2, Karnataka Lokayukta.
Bangalore City Division, Bangalore order that Sri. Manjunath G
Hugar, Police Inspector-05, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore City
Police Station, Bangalore to register a case under Section 13(1)(b)
r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against Sri Shivaraju
S/o Basavegowda. Tahasildar Grade-2. Revene Department, M.S
Building. Bengaluru and to investigate the said case
Further I authorize Sri Manjunath G Hugar. Police Inspector-
05, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore City Police Station, Bangalore,
under the provisions of the section 18 of the Prevention of corruption
Act 1988 to inspect the bankers books in so far as it relates to the
25
accounts of the persons suspected to be holding money on behalf of
the said Sri Shivaraju S/o Basavegowda, Thasildar Grade-2 Revenu
Department, M.S Building, Bengaluru and to take or cause to be
taken certified copies of the relevant entries there from and the
bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the police officer Sri
Manjunath G Hugar, Police Inspector- 05. Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore City Police Station, Bangalore in the exercise of the
powers under the said section of law.
WP.No.20697/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, DAVANAGERE.
Subject: Prossession of Properties Disproportionate to the
known sources of income by Sri N.J.Nagaraj, Takashildar, Holalkere
Taluk office, Chitradurga District.
Reference: Source Report submitted by Sri. Anjaneya. N.H.
Police Inspector. Lokayuktha Police Station, Davanagere,
No:Lok/DVG/PI-2/ SOURCE REPORT/02/2023 Dtd.:01/04/2023
I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri.
Anjaneya.N.H, PI, Lokayuktha Police Station, Davanagere, relating to
his receipts of credible information that one Sri N.J.Nagaraj,
Tahashildar, Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga District, has acquired
properties Disproportionate to his known sources of income to the
extent of Rs 1,27,49,000/- and there by committed an offence under
section 13(1)(b), 13(2) the prevention of corruption act-1988
(amendment act-2018)
From the material placed before me and with application of
my mind I am satisfied that a Prima-facie case is made out against
Sri N.J.Nagaraj, Tahashildar, Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga
District, warranting a statutory investigation for an offence under
section 13(1)(b), 13(2) the prevention of corruption Act-1988
(amendment Act-2018). 1, Superintendent of Police Karnataka
Lokayuktha, Davanagere have been specially authorised to
investigate cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988
(amendment Act-2018).
ORDER NO: Lok//SP/DVG/02/2023, Date: 21.04.2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under section
17 of the prevention of Corruption Act-1958 (amendment act-2018),
1, M.S.Koulapure, Superintendent of Police, Karanakta Lokayuktha
26
Davanagere order that Sri. Rashtrapathi.IL.S, PI, Lokayuktha Police
Station, Davanagere, to register a case under section 13(1)(b),
13(2) PC Act-1988 (Amendment act- 2018) against Sri N.J.Nagaraj,
Tahashildar, Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga District. and to
investigate the said case.
Further I authorize Sri. Anjaneya.N.H, PI, Loakayuktha Police
Station, Davanagere under the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 to
inspect the Bankers books in so for as relates to the accounts of
persons suspected to be holding money on behalf of the said Sri Sri
N.J.Nagaraj, Tahashildar, Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga District,
and to take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant
entries there from and to freeze the bank accounts as per section
102 of Cr.P.C if necessary, the bankers concerned shall be bound to
assist the Police Officer Sri. Rashtrapathi.H.S, PI, Lokayuktha Police
Station, Davanagere to exercise the powers under the P.C Act-1988
(Amendment Act-2018)
WP.No.22626/2023:
The Certified Copy of the Order dated 21.08.2023 passed by
the Superintendent of Police under Second proviso of the Section 17
PC Act, 1988:
Rest is in kannada untranslatable.
Wp.No. 27760/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE CITY DIVISION
Sub: Possession of properties disproportionate to the known
sources of income by S. Nataraja, Revenue inspector, Hoodi Ward
No.54, Mahadevapura, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru.
Ref: Source report submitted by Shri Basavaraja. G. Pulhari
PI-10, KLA, Bengaluru City on 09.08.2023
With respect to the above cited subject and reference, it is
ascertained that S. Nataraja, Revenue inspector, Hoodi Ward No.54,
Mahadevapura, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru, has acquired properties
disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.
3,05,01,000.00/-i.e., 338.90% and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Sec. 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act-1988.
27
From the material placed before me and with the application
of my mind, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made
out against S.Nataraja, Revenue inspector, Hoodi Ward No.54,
Mahadevapura, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru warranting a statutory
investigation for an offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(b) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988.
Hence I pass the following Order.
ORDER NO. LOK/INV(G)/CITY/38/2023, DATED:16/08/2023
Therefore, by virtue of the powers vested in me under the
provisions of Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, I,
Ashok.K.V., IPS., Superintendent of Police-2, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru City hereby authorize Sri Srikanth.S Police inspector-01
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City to register a case under Sec.
13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 against
S.Nataraja, Revenue inspector, Hoodi Ward No.54, Mahadevapura,
B.B.M.P., Bengaluru and to investigate the said case.
Further, I authorize Sri Srikanth.S Police inspector-01
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City under the provisions of
Sec. 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act -1988 to inspect the
Banker Books in so far as it relates to the accounts of the
persons suspected to be holding money on behalf of the accused
and his family members and benami persons and take or cause
to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries there from,
the bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the said Police
Officer in the exercise of the powers under the said section of
law.
38. In the present cases, all orders issued by the
Superintendent of Police under the second proviso are in a
standardized, cyclostyled format. The only variations are the
names of the accused, the name of the Superintendent of
Police, and the amounts of the disproportionate assets. These
orders reveal that, in some instances, the Superintendent of
Police has not reviewed the source report. In other instances,
the Superintendent of Police has reviewed the source report,
considered the materials presented, and has concluded
thereafter that a prima facie case warranted investigation.
39. However, the orders do not indicate whether the
information that formed the basis of the source report was
28
reviewed. Furthermore, no reasons are provided for forming the
opinion that a prima facie case exists, necessitating a statutory
investigation against the petitioners. As a result, the orders
authorizing police inspectors to conduct investigations are not in
compliance with the second proviso to Section 17. They also fail
to align with the legal principles established by the Supreme
Court and this Court concerning the provision. Consequently,
the registration of the First Information Reports (FIRs) is
invalidated.
Point No.(ii):
40. The conducting of the preliminary enquiry in the
corruption case was considered by the Apex Court in the cases
of Lalitha Kumari v. Govt of U.P. 2013 14 SCR 713, P.
Sirajuddin Etc. v. State of Madras 1971 AIR SC 520,
Charan Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 469,
and it was ruled that an enquiry at a pre-FIR stage is held to be
permissible but not only permissible but desirable, more
particularly in cases where the allegations are of misconduct of
corrupt practice acquiring asset disproportionate to his known
source of income. However, It was clarified in the case of CBI
v. H T Vijayalakshmi (supra) that the preliminary *enquiry
cannot be demanded by the accused as a matter of right, but is
desirable if the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offense but indicates the necessity for enquiry, a
preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether
cognizable offense is disclosed or not. It was also observed that
as to what type and in which cases the preliminary *enquiry is
to be conducted will depend upon the facts and circumstances of
the cases. Referencing the case of State of Telangana v.
Manajipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy (2019) SCC
OnLine SC 1559, the Apex Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi
upheld the ratio that the object of the preliminary enquiry was
to not vest the right to a preliminary enquiry in the accused but
to ensure there is no abuse of the process of law in order to
target public servants. Moreover, the Apex Court has
periodically held referencing the ACB, CBI and the Lokayuktha
Manuals that "even when a preliminary enquiry is initiated, it
has to stop as soon as the officer ascertains that enough the
material has been collected which discloses the commission of a
cognizable offense."
29
41. In the instant cases, on perusal of the source
information reports produced, although properties standing in
the name of the public servant or the family members are
purchased out of loans borrowed from Banks/financial
institutions etc., the same is not reflected in the source report.
42. Furthermore, the assets standing in the names of
the parents, spouses, major children, married sisters and
brothers, who are employed, are also erroneously included in
the source report without mentioning the dates of acquisition
thereof.
43. The source report must reveal the date and nature
of acquisition of assets and not merely state the assets standing
in the name of the public servant, his spouse, children and
relatives. The valuation of the immovable properties is
imaginary and not based on any objective assessment with
reference to their market value at the time of their acquisition.
44. The source report should reveal the petitioner's
income from actual salary drawn during the period of the check
period. For instance, in WP No.19512/2022, the petitioner was
appointed as an Assistant Director, Department Industries and
Commerce, Government of Karnataka on 4.5.1994 and at
present he is working as Additional Director. The income of the
petitioner from the date of joining into service till date is taken
as Rs.30,00,000/- as against Rs.1,79,79,000/-. Although, the
net salary of the petitioner as on February, 2022 is taken as
Rs.1,71,427/- and gross salary at Rs.1,09,600/- For thirty
years in service, the income of the petitioner has been
inaccurately calculated to a mere Rs.30,00,000/-.
45. Conducting a preliminary *enquiry is
advisable under the following circumstances:
1. When movable or immovable properties are
registered in the name of the spouse, major children, or any
other family members of the accused, it is imperative to verify
whether these acquisitions align with their respective legitimate
earnings from professions or employment.
2. When properties have been acquired by spouses,
children, or other family members through inheritance or as
30
gifts from individuals who are not public servants, a thorough
*enquiry is necessary to confirm the legitimacy of such transfers
and their compliance with legal provisions.
3. In cases where there is a significant miscalculation
or discrepancy in the reported income of the public servant
during the specified check period, a detailed examination is
required to accurately determine the actual income earned
during that period, ensuring a fair assessment.
4. When alleged assets are registered in the names of
unrelated strangers or entities, it is crucial to investigate any
potential hidden connections or proxies acting on behalf of the
public servant.
5. Verification of the timing of asset acquisitions is
essential, especially concerning assets listed in the source
information report acquired before the commencement or after
the expiry of the check period, ensuring they fall within the
relevant scrutiny period.
6. When the source report lacks specific details such
as the specified check period, items marked as 'Nil' during the
check period, or non-consideration of loans in the income
column, a preliminary *enquiry is essential to clarify and obtain
precise information regarding the period under investigation and
the specific assets involved.
46. By conducting a preliminary *enquiry under these
circumstances, investigators can ensure that any further actions
are based on well-founded suspicions and accurate information,
thereby upholding the principles of fairness and justice.
47. However, it may be pertinent to add that the above
guidelines are merely illustrative of circumstances in which a
preliminary *enquiry may be conducted and and that it may not
be possible for Courts of Law to envisage and define precisely
the exhaustive gamut of circumstances in which such an enquiry
must be conducted. It is incumbent upon the investigators to
conduct due verification and scrutiny of the record of the case
and the materials submitted therewith, prior to the setting the
criminal law into motion.
31
48. In view of the facts of the instant cases, the
petitioners have objectively made out a case for the desirability
of conducting a preliminary enquiry.
Point No.(iii):
49. Section 17 is a non-obstante clause and states that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, no police officer below the rank specified in clauses
(a) to (c) shall investigate any offense punishable under this Act
without the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
50. The first proviso states that an officer not below
the rank of police inspector, who is authorized by the State
Government, may also investigate any such offense without the
order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
51. The second proviso states that in respect of an
offense referred to in clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section
13, the police inspector shall not investigate without the order of
a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
52. A reading of the above provisions indicates that
there is no bar on registering the FIR by the investigating police
officer without obtaining an order of authorization to investigate.
In other words, the additional safeguard inherent in the second
proviso of Section 17 is attracted only when the stage of
investigation is reached. Therefore, the question before us is
whether an FIR may be registered for alleged offenses
punishable under the Act of 1988 before obtaining an order of
authorization under the second proviso of Section 17 of the Act,
with reference to the provisions contained in Sections 154, 156,
and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
53. Therefore, what is to be considered is whether the
procedural safeguards outlined in Section 17 apply strictly to the
investigation phase, thereby allowing the registration of an FIR
to proceed independently of the need for prior authorization.
The relationship between the provisions of the Act of 1988 and
the Code of Criminal Procedure must be examined to determine
if the initiation of an FIR can precede the investigative
authorization stipulated by the second proviso of Section 17.
32
54. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. places an obligation on a
police officer in charge of a police station to record or cause to,
the substance of every information relating to the commission of
a cognizable office.
55. Section 156 of Cr.P.C. grants plenary powers to the
police officer in-charge of a police station to investigate any
cognizable case within the limits of such station, without the
order of the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Section employs the
word 'may,' indicating the according of discretion to the
concerned police officer so as to examine from the ascertained
facts and circumstances of the case, as to whether there exists
sufficient ground to enter on an investigation.
56. Section 157 of the Code provides for where it
appears to the investigating officer that there is no sufficient
ground to enter on an investigation, the said officer may in the
exercise of his discretion choose not to investigate the case,
with reasons to be recorded in the report to be sent to the
jurisdictional Magistrate. Furthermore, in the interest of
transparency and accountability, the Code also compels the said
officer to forthwith notify the informant of the fact that he will
not investigate the case.
57. Sri Sandesh J Chouta, learned senior counsel
argued that the Supreme Court in the Kailash Vijayvargiya case
clearly distinguished between the responsibilities of the police to
register an FIR and to investigate it, treating them as separate
functions under the law. In the Lalita Kumari case, the Court
underscored the mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). This section mandates that
the police must register an FIR whenever they receive
information about the commission of a cognizable offense, with
no discretion to ignore or delay this process.
58. The rationale behind this mandate is to prevent any
information about such offenses from being ignored, which could
otherwise protect the accused unjustly. By removing police
discretion in this matter, the law aims to curb arbitrary actions
by the police and protect the liberty of individuals. This
mandatory registration serves as a crucial right for those
33
seeking justice, ensuring timely investigations and preventing
any potential manipulation in criminal proceedings.
59. The Apex Court has ruled that "Section 157
requires more stringent criteria than Section 154 of the Cr.PC,"
giving the investigating officer discretion to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to begin an investigation. Additionally,
the Court emphasized that "the Magistrate is involved at all
stages of the investigation process."
60. Moreover, in the case of Shivashankara Murthy
(Crl.P No.10109/2024 : DD 25.4.2024), a coordinate Bench
of this Court referenced a Circular dated 11.05.2023 issued by
the Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. The Bench
stated that an FIR must be registered first, and then the
Superintendent of Police must authorize the investigation under
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
61. In the case of G. M. Shivakumar (supra), an FIR
was immediately registered following the presentation of the
source report. Subsequently, upon the issuance of the order
under the second proviso of Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, a coordinate bench of this Court quashed
the order of cognizance taken by the Trial Court, despite the
prior exoneration of the accused in the departmental *enquiry.
62. The Court remarked that the Superintendent of
Police's directive to register an FIR immediately upon receiving
the source report, based solely on suspicions of asset
accumulation allegedly disproportionate to known sources of
income, clearly demonstrated a lack of verification of the
contents of the source report. The Court further held that such
circumstances unequivocally necessitate the conduct of an
*enquiry to verify the allegations before proceeding with the
registration of an FIR.
63. A similar issue was considered by the High Court of
Bombay in the case of Ram Rijhumal Kriplani v. The State,
1957 SCC Online Bom 54. This case examined Section 5A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which corresponds to
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court
made a distinction between the stages of filing the first
34
information report (FIR), conducting an investigation, and taking
cognizance of the offense.
64. The Court held that the provisions of Section 5A of
the 1947 Act only apply once the investigation stage is reached.
These provisions do not apply at the stage of filing the FIR. The
Court noted that the stage of registering the FIR comes before
the stage of investigation and that the FIR is the basis upon
which the investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) begins. It further noted that an FIR
represents the informant's initial case.
65. The Court further explained that an investigation
into the facts and circumstances of a case can only start once
the FIR has been filed and the officer in charge of the police
station has sent a report of the suspected offense to the
jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the provisions of Section 5A
of the 1947 Act (corresponding to Section 17 of the 1988 Act)
do not affect or override the provisions related to filing of an FIR
for cognizable offenses under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., which
has universal application.
66. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Babu Rao
Chinchansur (supra) has duly recognised the distinction
between the two stages, wherein the Court ultimately concluded
that whilst a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C
against an offense punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act,
1988 was maintainable, however, sanction under Section 19 of
the Act, 1988 was a condition precedent to entertain the said
complaint.
67. The established legal principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts can be summarized as
follows:
1) Registration of FIR vs. Authorization of Investigation:
Second Proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 mandates that for offenses under
the Act, no investigation can proceed without
authorization from a Superintendent of Police. However,
this authorization requirement applies at the stage of
investigation and not to the initial registration of an FIR.
35
2) Mandatory FIR Registration: Section 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that police must
register an FIR upon receiving information about a
cognizable offense, with no discretion to delay or ignore
unless the information is non-cognizable.
3) Discretion in Investigation: Section 156 of CrPC grants
discretion to the police officer in charge of a police station
to investigate any cognizable offense based on the facts
and circumstances known to them.
4) Judicial Interpretation: The Apex Court and the High
Court/s have clarified that the requirement for
investigation authorization under Section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act comes into play only after
the FIR is registered. The initial step of FIR registration is
not contingent upon obtaining prior investigation
authorization.
5) Separation of Powers: The judiciary has upheld the
distinction between FIR registration and the subsequent
investigation stage, emphasizing that the mandatory
registration of FIRs is aimed at preventing any
information about offenses from being overlooked or
delayed.
68. In essence, while Section 17 imposes strict
procedural safeguards for the investigation stage of offenses
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it does not hinder the
police from registering an FIR promptly upon receipt of
information about such offenses.
69. Based on the principles established in decisions by
the Apex Court and High Courts, when an FIR is mandatorily
registered for an alleged offense under Section 13(1)(b) of the
PC Act, 1988, the police officer must submit the report to the
Magistrate under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. Additionally, the
police officer should forward it to the Superintendent of Police
along with the source information report and other materials
that form the basis for preparing a credible source report. This
is to request an order of investigation under the second proviso
of Section 17 of the Act. The right to register an FIR stands
independently and is not affected by any statutory bar,
36
specifically in cases involving offenses described in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of section 13 under the 1988 Act.
70. In these cases, the authorization granted to
investigate preceded the registration of FIRs and is thus,
impermissible and is nullified."
Prior to the judgment so rendered by the coordinate Bench, another
coordinate Bench in T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
7. Having heard the arguments of both the learned
Senior counsels, learned counsel for the respondent and
perused the records, as per the FIR registered by the Police that
the petitioner being Officer working in the Vigilance Wing of
BESCOM Department, he has joined the service on 3.8.2007 as
Assistant Executive Engineer and he was promoted as Executive
Engineer in the year 2021. It is alleged that the petitioner made
illegal assets in the name of his wife, mother and relatives and
acquired properties in the name of Benami and he has no other
income than the salary. He has illegally gained Rs.3,29,79,767/-
, therefore, there is a source report collected by the police and
registered the FIR.
8. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
mainly contended that the petitioner has purchased some
property prior to entering into the service, that cannot be
considered as property purchased subsequent to the entering
into service and hence, filing the income tax returns and apart
from that, his wife is also earning income and she is the income
tax assessee. He has declared the assets and liabilities to the
Authority continuously. Therefore, question of making allegation
2
Criminal Petition No.13460 of 2023 decided on 04-03-2024
37
that he has amazed the wealth more than the known source of
income does not arise.
9. The another main contention of the learned Senior
counsel is that there is no proper application of mind by the S.P.
for appointing the Investigation Officer as per Section 17 of the
P.C. Act. There is no FIR registered by the Police prior to
requesting the S.P. for passing the order as per proviso 2 of
Section 17 of the P.C. Act. There is no preliminary enquiry
conducted by the Investigating Officer before registering the FIR
and FIR was registered after according permission by the S.P.
under Section 17 of P.C. Act, which is not correct. Therefore,
conducting investigation in the FIR is unsustainable under the
law.
10. In support of his contention, the learned Senior
counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of State of Haryana and Others vs.
Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
Charan Singh vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported
in (2021) 5 SCC 469 and also the judgment passed by the Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Charan Singh stated supra has held at paragraph
Nos.15 and 15.1 as under:
"15. While expressing the need for a preliminary enquiry
before proceeding against public servants who are charged with
the allegation of corruption, it is observed in P. Sirajuddin³
that: (SCC p. 601, para 17)
"before a public servant, whatever be his status, is
publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to
serious misdemeanour or misconduct of indulging into corrupt
practice and a first information is lodged against him, there
must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations
by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a
person who is occupying the top position in a department, even
if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in
particular but to the department he belonged to in general. If
the Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said
department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no
exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this
Department.
38
It is further observed that: (P. Sirajuddin case³, SCC
p.601, para 17)
"when such an enquiry is to be held for the purpose of
finding out whether criminal proceedings are to be initiated and
the scope thereof must be limited to the examination of
persons who have knowledge of the affairs of the person
against whom the allegations are made and documents bearing
on the same to find out whether there is a prima facie evidence
of guilt of the officer, thereafter, the ordinary law of the land
must take its course and further enquiry be proceeded with in
terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure by lodging a first
information report."
15.1. Thus, an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be
permissible and not only permissible but desirable, more
particularly in cases where the allegations are of misconduct of
corrupt practice acquiring the assets/properties
disproportionate to his known sources of income. After the
enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage/preliminary
enquiry, if, on the basis of the material collected during such
enquiry, it is found that the complaint is vexatious and/ or
there is no substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall not
be lodged. However, if the material discloses prima facie a
commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged and
the criminal proceedings will be put in motion and the further
investigation will be carried out in terms of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be
permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered.
Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be in the interest
of the alleged accused also against whom the complaint is
made."
11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Navaneeth Mohan N. vs. SHO, ACB, Bengaluru and
Another in W.P.No.43817/2018 (GM-RES) dated
21.04.2021 has held at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 as under:
"15. The source report which is part of Annexure-A
submitted before Superintendent of Police, ACB, Bengaluru, the
note of Superintendent of Police, ACB do not indicate that along
with the said report any material was placed before him to
grant permission to register the FIR and investigate the matter.
In the order of Superintendent Police absolutely, there is no
reference to submission of any documents along with the
39
source report. In one stroke the Superintendent of Police says
that he is convinced that it is a fit case to register the FIR and
investigate the case. He does not even say that any preliminary
enquiry was conducted prior to placing source report before
him. Therefore, there is clear violation of the direction issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case in
registering the FIR.
16. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Charansingh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in
Crl.A.No.363/2021 dated 24.03.2021 relied upon by the
learned Spl. Public Prosecutor himself, in para 12 it was held
that before registering the FIR a preliminary enquiry shall be
conducted either confidential or open enquiry."
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Balakrishna H.N. vs. State by ACB, Mysuru in
W.P.No.15886/2022 (GM-RES) has held at paragraph No.12
which is as under:
"12. If the reasons rendered by Apex Court are noticed,
two factors would emerge one, that the prosecution is required
to draw up source report after conducting some sort of a
preliminary enquiry to know the assets of the Government
servant and twe, after the source information report is placed
before the Superior Officer - Superintendent of Police, he has to
verify as to whether a crime should be registered or otherwise.
If these principles that would emerge from the judgment of the
Apex Court are considered qua the facts obtaining in the case
at hand, the registration of the crime would fall foul of the
principles laid down by the Apex Court and that of this Court in
the afore-quoted judgment. Therefore, on this short ground
that the source information report disclosed blatant non-
application of mind and non-conduct of preliminary inquiry as is
necessary in law only in cases concerning disproportionate
assets.
13. The Co-ordinate Bench had taken similar view holding
that there is no preliminary enquiry conducted by the Police
before registering the FIR and before registering the FIR passing
the order by the S.P. under proviso 2 of Section 17 of P.C. Act is
a gross violation of the mandatory provisions.
40
14. Here in the case on hand, the S.P. accorded
permission purely based upon the source report and he has not
verified the FIR. The FIR also not registered prior to passing the
order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act. Apart from that, it is
brought to the notice of the Court that the source report was
prepared on 10.11.2023 and it was placed before the Police
Inspector. For that, it was endorsed as "FOR ENQUIRY &
REPORT", but there is no preliminary enquiry conducted by the
Police. But on the same source report, the S.P. passed the order
under proviso 2 of Section 17 of the P.C. Act on 4.12.2023 and
simultaneously, he has instructed the Dy.S.P. to register the FIR
and take up the investigation on 4.12.2023. It is clear case of
violation of the guidelines issued by the Lalita Kumari vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 1. Once the Police Inspector submitted the
source report, when it was endorsed by the Higher Officer for
enquiry and report, there is no preliminary enquiry conducted
and any report submitted by the police but directly passed the
order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act and then FIR was
registered. There is no occasion for the S.P. to verify the source
report, preliminary enquiry and the FIR prior to passing the
order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act. As held by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balakrishna stated
supra, the police required to file preliminary enquiry based upon
the source report, then FIR required to be registered, thereafter,
the source report, preliminary enquiry report and FIR shall be
forwarded to the S.P. for according permission under Section 17
of P.C. Act. Thereafter, the S.P. required to apply his mind and
after satisfaction, he should pass the order for investigating the
matter. But here in this case, directly, passed the order under
Section 17 of P.C. Act and simultaneously ordered to register
FIR by making endorsement as "REGISTER FIR AND TAKE UP
INVESTIGATION (SIGNED BY THE S.P.)". There is clear
violation of the mandatory provisions as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal stated supra, has held
at paragraph No.128 which is as under:
"128. The conspectus of the above decisions clearly shows
that the granting of permission under Section 5-A authorising
an officer of lower rank to conduct the investigation is not to be
treated by a Magistrate as a mere matter of routine, but it is an
exercise of his judicial discretion having regard to the policy
underlying and the order giving the permission should, on the
41
face of it, disclose the reasons for granting such permission. It
is, therefore, clear in the light of the above principle of law that
the Superintendent of Police or any police officer of above rank
while granting permission to a non-designated police officer in
exercise of his power under the second proviso to Section 5-
A(1), should satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient
reasons to entrust the investigation with such police officer of a
lower rank and record his reasons for doing so; because the
very object of the legislature in enacting Section 5-A is to see
that the investigation of offences punishable under Section 161,
165 or 165-A of Indian Penal Code as well as those under
Section 5 of the Act should be done ordinarily by the officers
designated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 5-A(1). The
exception should be for adequate reasons which should be
disclosed on the face of the order. In this connection, it is
worthy to note that the strict compliance with Section 5-A(1)
becomes absolutely necessary, because Section 5-A(1)
expressly prohibits police officers, below certain ranks, from
investigating into offences under Sections 161, 165 and 165-A,
IPC and under Section 5 of the Act without orders of
Magistrates specified there- in or without authorisation of the
State Government in this behalf and from effecting arrests for
those offences without a warrant. See also A.C. Sharma v.
Delhi Administration".
15. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above said cases i.e., Bhajan Lal's case
and Lalita Kumari 's case and the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Balakrishna stated supra, the FIR
deserved to be quashed for not following the mandatory
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore,
this Court need not to go into the validity of the source report or
the disproportionate asset said to be held by the accused and
the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent,
it is not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed."
42
In yet another judgment, the coordinate Bench in the case of
CHANNAKESHAVA H.D. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA3 has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
11. On perusal of the same, the Lokayuktha police
prepared a source report dated 5.10.2023 and the same was
forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha
contending that the petitioner being the Executive Engineer
working in BESCOM amassed the property or assets in the
names of family members, his name to the tune of
Rs.12,95,91,000/- and his expenditure was Rs.86,99,000/- and
income was Rs.7,18,23,000/- and the disproportionate assets
was Rs.6,64,67,000/- to the tune of 92.54%. Therefore,
requested the Superintendent of Police to permit for registering
the FIR. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police sent the
source report to the Dy.SP and the Dy.SP given a report on
24.11.2023, and based upon the Dy.SP report, again the
Superintendent of Police passed an order on 04.12.2023 under
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act directing the
police inspector Srikant to register the FIR. Subsequently, the
police inspector registered the FIR for the offences punishable
under Section 13(b) read with section 13(2) of P.C. Act, which is
under challenge.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
there is manipulation in the registration of FIR, the reference
number made in the FIR as per the order of the Superintendent
of Police is altogether different from the order passed by the
Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. In this regard, it is convenient to mention the
order of the Superintendent of Police as under:
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
No. LOK/SP/Bengaluru City-1/Source-14/2023 M.S.Buildings,
Dr.B.R.Abmedkar Veedhi,
3
Writ Petition No.28052 of 2023 decided on 25th April, 2024
43
Bengaluru, dt:04/12/2023.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BENGALURU CITY-1
Sub:Possession of properties disproportionate to the known
sources of income by Sri Channakeshava H.D. Executive engineer,
KPTCL, present working at Bescom, Jayanagara Division Bengalore.
Ref: 1. Source report submitted by
Shri Girish.B., DySP-09, KLA,
Bengaluru City-1 on
05.10.2023
2. Verification report submitted
by Shri Basavaraj R Magadum
DySP-05, KLA, Bengaluru City-
1 on 27.11.2023
***
With respect to the above cited subject and reference-1 & 2, it
is ascertained that Sri Channakeshava H.D. Executive engineer,
KPTCL, present working at Bescom, Jayanagara Division Bengalore has
acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income to
the extent of Rs. 6,64,67,000/- i.e., 92.54% and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act-1988.
From the material placed before me and with the application of
my mind, I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out against Sri
Channakeshava H.D. Executive engineer, KPTCL, present working at
Bescom, Jayanagara Division Bengalore warranting a statutory
investigation for an offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988.
Hence I pass the following Order
ORDER NO. LOK/INV(G)/CITY/54/2023,
DATED:04/12/2023
Therefore, by virtue of the powers vested in me under the
provisions of Sec. 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988, I,
Joshi Shrinath Mahadev, IPS., Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru City-1 order that Sri S.Srikanth, PI-01,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City-1 to register a case under Sec.
13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988 against
Sri Channakeshava H.D. Executive engineer, KPTCL, present working
at Bescom, Jayanagara Division Bengalore and to investigate the said
case.
44
Further, I authorize Sri S.Srikanth, PI-01, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru City-1 under the provisions of Section 18 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988 to inspect the Banker Books in so
far as it relates to the accounts of the persons suspected to be holding
money on behalf of the said Sri Channakeshava H.D. Executive
engineer, KPTCL, present working at Bescom, Jayanagara Division
Bengalore and to take or cause to be taken certified copies of the
relevant entries there from and the bankers concerned shall be bound
to assist Sri S.Srikanth, PI- 01, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City-1
the police officer in the exercise of the powers under the said section
of law.
(Joshi Shrinath Mahadev, IPS.,)
Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru City -1.
13. On perusal of the reference number made by the
Superintendent of Police which reveals No.LOK/SP/Bengaluru
City-1/Source-14/2023, and based upon the said order, the FIR
came to be registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the endorsement made in the FIR regarding
the order passed by the Superintendent of Police and the
number mentioned on the bottom of the FIR is altogether
different which is referred as under:
1. Annexures (lagathugalu) 1 the source report of the
complainant.
2. The order of the S.P.
No.KLA/PCD/SP2/source/01/2023 dated 09.02.2023.
14. On perusal of the order of the Superintendent of
Police, which reveals that the source report said to be 1/2023
dated 09.02.2023 in the FIR, whereas the order of
Superintendent of Police reveals that the source report was
dated 05.10.2023 and the number was No.LOK/SP/Bengaluru
City-1/Source-14/2023. On perusal of the same, it is altogether
different source report verified by the Superintendent of Police
and passed the order, the order of Superintendent of Police is
different from the number mentioned in the FIR in respect of
registering the case.
45
15. Even otherwise, on perusal of the endorsement made
by the police on receipt of the source report dated 05.10.2023,
it is mentioned the order of the Superintendent of Police as
L0K/INV(G)/city/54/2024 and this number also altogether
different from the order of the Superintendent of Police, as
stated above.
16. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of SANATHANA KALAKSHETHRA Vs. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA (WP No.16083/2023 (GM-RES) dated
14.12.2023). In the said case, the Superintendent of Police,
Ramanagar issued authorisation under Section 17 of P.C. Act
whereas the FIR was registered at District Mandya, and the Co-
ordinate Bench has quashed the FIR. Here, in this case, the
source report for registering the FIR is altogether different from
the authorisation issued by the Superintendent of Police and the
source report sent by the police inspector and the date also
differs. The complaint was registered on the source report
1/2023 dated 9.2.2023 where as the authorisation issued by the
Superintendent of Police on respect of No.14/2023 dated
5.10.2023. Therefore, it is clear that very registering FIR and
issuing authorisation is non application of mind. Therefore, both
the source reports are together different from each other.
17. As per the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of NAVANEETH MOHAN N Vs. THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition No.43817/2018 dated
21.04.2021), where the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the FIR
for registering it without doing enquiry and non application of
mind. The another Co-ordinate Bench has also quashed the
proceedings in the case of M. PUTTASWAMY AND OTHERS
Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Criminal
petition No.391/2017 clubbed with matters dated 16.03.2023
and so many FIRs were quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. Following the said decisions, this Court also quashed
the FIR in the case of N SATISH BABU Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION AND
ANOTHER (Writ Petition No.3107/2024 dated 01.03.2024).
46
18. There is no preliminary enquiry conducted by the
police before registering the FIR. The source report also
insufficient since the beginning period of the property in
possession of the petitioner was shown as 'Nil' or 'Zero'.
Therefore, the source report is also insufficient and the order
passed by the Superintendent of Police is also non application of
mind. Apart from that, the FIR could have been registered and
submitted to the Superintendent of Police seeking investigation
of the matter. Hence, there is lapse on the part of the
respondent police in registering the FIR and passing the order
by the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of P.C. Act.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the
notice that there is circular dated 11.05.2023 issue by DGP,
Lokayuktha for how to investigate the matter in disproportionate
assets case, wherein it is stated as under:
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
LOK/DGP/CIRCULAR-01/2023 Office of the
Director General of Police
Karnataka Lokayukta,
M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560001.
Date: 11/05/2023.
CIRCULAR
Sub: Guidelines to be followed by the
Investigating officers while
Investigating Disproportionate
Asset (DA) cases-reg.
****
With a view to standardise investigation of Disproportionate
Asset (DA) cases the following directions are issued for immediate
compliance by all the Investigation Officers (I.O) henceforth. These
directions will also apply to DA cases under Investigation currently.
i. All DA cases shall be registered only after
a. Submission of detailed Source Information
Report (SIR) by the generating officer to
the Unit Superintendent of Police (SP),
47
followed by
b. Thorough verification of the SIR by the
Unit SP and submission of the same to
DGP/ADGP KLA, and
c. Obtaining orders of the DGP/ADGP
ii. All SIRs submitted for orders of DGP/ADGP,
shall contain A, B, C and D statements and
calculation of DA as per Annexure-1 and
comments of the Unit SP on being satisfied
with the SIR.
iii. Upon receipt of orders from DGP/ADGP KI.A, the Unit
SP shall get the FIR registered and issue orders under Sec. 17 PC
Act 1988 assigning the Investigation Officer (10). The 1.0 shall not
be the same as SIR generating officer.
20. In view of the aforesaid findings and the very police
violated their circular in registering the FIR, therefore, the FIR
registered by the police is unsustainable and is liable to be
quashed."
8. In the afore-quoted judgment of the coordinate Bench in
CHANNAKESHAVA there is reference to a Circular of the
Lokayukta. The circular is issued with a view to standardize
investigation of disproportionate asset cases. In the Circular of the
Lokayukta it is directed that all disproportionate asset cases shall
be registered only after detailed source information report by the
generating officer to the unit Superintendent of Police. All source
report must contain all the statements and calculations and the unit
48
Superintendent of Police must be satisfied with the source report.
Upon receipt of orders from ADGP/DGP, the Unit Superintendent of
Police shall get the FIR registered and issue orders under Section
17 of the Act assigning the investigation officer. The Investigating
Officer should not be the same as the source generating officer.
9. In the light of the issue standing answered by the
coordinate Benches, to take a different view the hands of this Court
are tied, as the Circular of the Lokayukta itself indicates particular
procedure to be followed for registration of a crime in
disproportionate asset cases. Admittedly, the same is not followed
in the case at hand. Therefore, the petition, on the aforesaid
technicality and the judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches
deserves to succeed however, with liberty to the Lokayukta to
initiate proceedings in accordance with law and if so done, shall
bear in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
49
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.7 of 2023 registered by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Chikkaballapura and pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura stands quashed with the afore- mentioned liberty.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS