1 Reserved on : 10.12.2024 Pronounced on : 22.01.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.11679 OF 2023 (GM – RES) BETWEEN: SRI H.J. RAMESH S/O LATE V. HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL), CORPORATE OFFICE, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.B.PATIL, SPL.PP FOR R-1; SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.PP FOR R-2; SRI A.CHANDRASHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.3; QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 26/2023 DATED 30/5/2023 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 13(1) (b) READ WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (ANNX-D) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. 3 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.12.2024, 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 a crime in Crime No.26 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). 2. Heard Sri K. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri A. Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 4 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner is an employee of the 3rd respondent/ Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited having joined as a Junior Engineer in the year 1992. He is promoted to higher echelons of office from time to time and at the relevant point in time was holding the post of Director (Technical) at the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited. When he was so functioning, it appears that a source report is drawn against the petitioner by the 1st respondent on 18-05-2023 and the source report is indicative of the fact that the petitioner has amassed wealth disproportionate to the tune of 172.7%. Based upon the said source report, an order is passed by the concerned Court permitting registration of crime which then becomes a crime in Crime No.26 of 2023. Search is conducted over the properties of the petitioner. Registration of crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the very grant of permission to register the crime 5 suffers from non-application of mind and is violative of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act. He would further contend that the source report that is drawn is completely contrary to known procedure in law as it takes in its sweep several of the properties that are acquired by the Government servant prior to his entry into service and there is no check period indicated in the source report as is necessary in law. On these two scores, he would seek to place reliance upon judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench in identical set of facts to buttress his submission that the proceedings should be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent Sri B.B. Patil would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that these are issues which are to be thrashed out in a full-blown trial, as there is no violation of law as is indicated by the petitioner and places reliance upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. In the light of what is called in question lying in a narrow compass at this juncture, what is necessary to be noticed is, whether the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent/Lokayukta against the petitioner is in consonance with law or otherwise? 8. The source report that is drawn against the petitioner in its entirety reads as follows: “±ÀAQvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ ªÀiÁZïð 2023 gÀªÀgÉV£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è UÀ½¹gÀÄªÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®åUÀ¼ÀÄ: PÀæ. ¸ÀA. D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1 ªÀÄ£É £ÀA 257/J, ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ £ÀA 257, ¦Lr £ÀA 17-113- 257/J, 12£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, 3£ÉÃ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¸ÁuÉUÀÄgÀÄªÀ£À ºÀ½î 1£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, ©EJAJ¯ï ¯ÉÃOmï, §¸ÀªÉÃ±ÀégÀ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-79, gÀ°è£À ¤ªÉÃ±À£À RjÃ¢ (2021) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÉZÀÑ (2023) ` 03,50,00,000.00 2 £ÀA 122/J, ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr, ²æÃ «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤®AiÀÄ, 1£ÉÃ ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, ±ÁgÀzÁ PÁ¯ÉÆÃ¤, ªÁqÀð £ÀA.101, §¸ÀªÉÃ±ÀégÀ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 79 gÀ°è£À ¤ªÉÃ±À£À RjÃ¢ (2019) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÉZÀÑ. ` 01,50,00,000.00 7 3 ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA 04, ¨Áå¯Á¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ, vÁªÀgÀPÉgÉ ºÉÆÃ§½, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀ°è£À ¤ªÉÃ±À£À RjÃ¢ (2019) ` 06,52,000.00 4 zÁªÀtUÉgÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ` 36,50,000.00 5 ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ f¯Éè ¸ÉÆgÀ§ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛPÉÆÃmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ vÉÆÃlzÀ ªÀÄ£É. ` 15,00,000.00 6 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ a£Àß 565 UÁæA ` 27,71,769.00 7 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¨É½î 6 PÉ.f ` 03,96,000.00 8 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ªÀdæzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ 25.589 UÁæA ` 03,66,715.00 9 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ¨É¯É ` 19,55,635.00 10 ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ J¯ï.L.¹ ¥Á°¹UÀ¼À°è vÉÆqÀV¹gÀÄªÀ ºÀt CAzÁdÄ. ` 02,44,932.00 CAzÁdÄ MlÄÖ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ` 6,15,37,051.00 ¦vÁæfðvÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀæ. ¸ÀA. D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1 ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÉÆgÀ§ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛPÉÆÃmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 2 JPÀgÉ PÀÈ¶ ¨sÀÆ«Ä. ` 48,00,000.00 RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.04.2023 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄªÀgÉV£À CAzÁdÄ RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ: 1. PËlÄA©PÀ ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÁdÄ. ` 80,00,000.00 2. ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÁdÄ. ` 50,00,000.00 3. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ UÀÈºÀ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ, CAzÁdÄ. ` 15,00,000.00 4. ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÉZÀÑ CAzÁdÄ. ` 05,00,000.00 8 5. ¨ÁåAPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸Á® (§rØ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ) ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ` 80,00,000.00 CAzÁdÄ RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ ` 02,30,00,000.00 DzÁAiÀÄ 1. ±ÀAQvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À CAzÁdÄ ¤ªÀé¼À ªÉÃvÀ£À DzÁAiÀÄ ` 02,00,00,000.00 2. PÀÈ¶¬ÄAzÀ §A¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ ` 10,00,000.00 3. ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ««zsÀ ¨ÁåAPïUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¸Á®. ` 01,00,00,000.00 CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ ` 3,10,00,000.00 C¸ÀªÀÄvÉÆÃ®£ÀªÁzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¯ÉPÁÌZÁgÀ 1 MlÄÖ D¹Û ` 06,15,37,051.00 2 MlÄÖ RZÀÄð ` 2,30,00,000.00 3 MlÄÖ D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ RZÀÄð (1+2) ` 08,45,37,051.00 4 MlÄÖ DzÁAiÀÄ ` 03,10,00,000.00 5 CPÀæªÀÄªÁV UÀ½¹zÀ D¹Û (3-4=5) ` 05,35,37,051.00 6 ±ÉÃPÀqÁªÁgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ D¹Û (5/4*100=%) 172.7% ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ C¢üPÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ²æÃ ºÉZï.eÉ gÀªÉÄÃ±ïgÀªÀgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 172.7% CAzÁdÄ C¸ÀªÀÄvÉÆÃ®£ÀªÁzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÉÃ C®èzÉÃ CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ, ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÉßÃ»vÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¨ÉÃ£Á«ÄAiÀiÁVAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ §®ªÁzÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.” What is discernible from the source report is that it does not have a check period. Check period would mean from what date to what date. The total salary income of the petitioner is left blank. The expenditure is taken which is contrary to law and a fancy figure of 9 172.7% is indicated to be the income disproportionate to the known source. Based upon the said source report permission is granted to register the crime in Crime No.26 of 2023 for the aforesaid offences. The permission granted is as follows: “¤ªÉÃzÀ£É: ²æÃ ²æÃPÁAvÀ J¸ï PI gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ¸ÉÆÃ¸ïð ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀÄÝ EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÆÃ.C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ C¢üPÁj ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ F ¢ªÀ¸À ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.05.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3.30 UÀAmÉUÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ PS Cr.No.26/2023 PÀ®A 13(1) (b) of P.C.Act jÃvÁå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÉ.” Whether the aforesaid drawing up of source report in the manner it is done or the permission granted to register the crime in an order which bears no application of mind need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN v. ACB1, while considering an offence that is akin to what is alleged in the case at hand, has held as follows: “…. …. …. “8. The whole challenge to the FIR is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case referred to Supra. While holding that in some of the case to harass the parties there is chance of filing false FIRs and also in some cases the reluctant police registers the FIR in 1 W.P.No.43817 of 2018 decided on 21-04-2021 10 cognizable cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain directions for registration of FIR in para 120 of the judgment. 9. Para 120 of the said judgment included the following directions: ”120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first information forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases 11 (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Reading of para 120.6 of the judgment makes it clear that in corruption cases, the preliminary enquiry may be made. The word ‘‘may’’ indicates the desirability and not mere arbitrary discretion. The challenge to the FIR is on the ground that no such preliminary enquiry was conducted and in the source report, the inspector put fancy figures only for the purpose of registering the FIR to harass the petitioner and stall the promotion. 11. To substantiate such contention, along with the petition, the copies of the sale deeds, lease deeds or title deeds relating to some of those properties are produced. Regarding item No.1 i.e., house No.67 of Ganganagar, Bengaluru, in the source report, the valuation is shown as 16 lakhs. But as per the sale deed, the said property was purchased in the year 2007 for consideration of Rs.14.5 lakhs/-. The building constructed on the said site is valued at Rs.1 Crore 50 lakhs/-. But according to the petitioner that is an inflated figure and he had informed the department about the construction of the said house. 12. The source report states the value of item No.2 petrol bump is Rs.40 lakhs, whereas the petitioner produces the registered lease deed to show that the said property is not owned by the petitioner but taken on lease. The property at item No.3 was purchased prior to check period. The property at item No.6 is shown worth Rs.40 lakhs in the source report, but in the registered sale deed, the consideration of the same is shown as Rs.1.5 lakhs. Similarly, when source report states the value of item No.7 as Rs.20 lakhs, the sale deed is for Rs.1.85 lakhs. 12 13. It was also contended that despite the wife of the petitioner having independent income, her income was considered as the petitioner’s income. Therefore, it was contended that if a preliminary enquiry was held calling upon the petitioner to explain the alleged disproportionate pecuniary resources that could have cleared the matter. It was also contended that if on securing the explanation of the petitioner still the respondent found that there is material to register the FIR, that could have been done. 14. The aforesaid sale deeds and the other materials show that value of the properties quoted in the source report was much higher than the rates quoted in the title documents. Petitioner has also produced the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of his wife to the effect that from 1988-92 to 2017-18 every year she has paid income tax. The said document further indicates that during the said period, she has paid in all Rs.1,58,85,469/- as income tax. 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 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. 13 17. It was further held that during the enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage, if the accused satisfies producing the materials relating to his known sources of income and the assets, no FIR will be lodged. It was held that if accused is not able to clarify his assets vis-à-vis, known sources of income, then the FIR will be lodged and he will be subjected to investigation. It was held that such an enquiry would be to safeguard the interest of the accused also which may avoid further harassment to him. 18. The judgment in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Others in 2018 3 SCC 104 was relied upon by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor to contend that, it is sufficient if FIR discloses prima facie a cognizable offence and the High Court cannot act like an Investigating Agency nor can exercise powers like an Appellate Court. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the said proposition. However, this Court also has to examine whether there was compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case. As already pointed out, there is no such compliance in the case on hand. 19. Only for the limited purpose of finding out whether the source report was based on any material, the title deeds produced by the petitioner with regard to some of the properties mentioned above were compared and examined. The respondent cannot dispute the consideration mentioned in those registered sale deeds at this length of time. They prima facie show that without calling upon the petitioner to show the value of those properties or without any concrete basis in the source report atleast for some of the items, the fancy value are quoted. 20. Under such circumstance, the judgment in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel’s case referred to supra no where advances the case of the respondent. Since the source report, order to register the FIR and the registration of the FIR were contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case and Charansingh’s case, they amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 14 21. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. This order does not preclude the respondent to conduct the preliminary enquiry as contemplated in Lalita Kumari’s and Charansingh’s case and if any material is found to proceed against the petitioner.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. This Court, in the case of K.R. KUMAR NAIK V. STATE2, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. The house of the petitioner was searched on the basis of FIR registered on 16-03-2022 after drawing up a source information report which also was prepared on 16-03-2022. Therefore, the dates assume significance. On 15-03-2022 in connection with Crime No. 23 of 2022 of some other person, the house of a person connected with the said crime was searched and articles belonging to the petitioner who was the neighbour of the said flat were found and immediately thereafter on the very same day a source information report was prepared and FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner. Thus, it becomes necessary to notice Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act. They read as follows: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or 2 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1362 15 (b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office. Explanation 1.-A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for. Explanation 2.-The expression “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful sources. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. Section 13(1) deals with a public servant who is said to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct. Criminal misconduct would be, if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office. Explanation offered to Section 13(1)(b) is that the person is presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly, if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for. Known source of income is also explained. 10. Therefore, to charge a public servant with Section 13(1) which deals with criminal misconduct, and being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income, there must be a basis. The basis emanates from a report. The report in corruption parlance is a source information report. A source information report cannot be generated at the drop of the hat. It is a responsible work of a responsible officer i.e., Inspector of Police, under the guidance and supervision of a superior police officer, a Deputy Superintendent of Police and it has to be drawn up after calculating entire period of service of a public servant and arrive at a conclusion albeit, prima facie, that 16 he has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. 11. These are the broad contours of generation of a source information report which can become criminal misconduct as obtaining under Section 13(1) of the Act which would become punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. An allegation of criminal misconduct on a public servant is serious one. Therefore, it cannot be a casual or a frolicsome act of the ACB in preparing the source information report at the drop of the hat. The importance of the source report being thus, it is germane to notice the source information report generated in the case at hand, which on the face of it, depicts it being prepared in a hottest haste. The source information report against petitioner reads as follows:— “SOURCE INFORMATION REPORT (S.I.R) 1. Name of the AGO Kumar Naik, Age-37Yrs aprox(22.08.1984) 2. Present designation (dept) and Group Executive Engineer, BESCOM, BBMP, Bengaluru. “Group - A” 3. Place of working Executive Engineer, BESCOM, BBMP, Bengaluru 4. Joined in 5. Joined as (designation and group Joined As Assistant Engineer, BESCOM. 6. Caste SC-Lambani 7. Native Place 8. Family tree (Parents, Siblings, wife, children, close relatives of Wife) Father : Rajendra Naik Wife : Smt. Ashalatha, 9. Total years of Service Not yet ascertained 10. Check Period From the date of joining service to till date. 11. Whether wife is working?(Y/N) No 12. Wife's designation, Dept, Group, Salary particulars, A.P.R. etc., No 17 AGO PROPERTY DETAILS AS PER RECORDS FOUND DURING SEARCH CONDUCTED IN PREMISES OF MUNAVAR PASHA 13. Homes/Constructed buildings Description of Property Total No. of Homes/Construc ted Buildings Name of the property owner Place of the property Total value of property #2103, Karle Zenith, Kempapura Bangalore 3- bed room Flat Kumar Naik Kempapura, Bangalore Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (approx) #43, 301, MU Nest, 5th Main, near Bhoopasandra Bus Stop, Sanjay nagar Post, Bangalore North, Bengaluru-94. This address has been figured in one of the document seized during the searches conducted at the residence of Munavar Pasha, Kale Zenith, Kempapura, Bangalore which needs to be further verified and ascertained the ownership. The address was found in the KIADB allotment letter issued to Smt. Ashalatha B w/o Kumar Naik. #363 Brindavana, 4th Main road, Kengeri Satellite Town, Kengeri Gollahalli, Bangalore This address has been figured in one of the document seized during the searches conducted at the residence of Munavar Pasha, Karle Zenith, Kempapura, Bangalore which needs to be further verified and ascertained the ownership. The address was found in the Aadhar card of the Kumar Naik. Muralidhar Banjara (29.01.1993) C/o Anil Kumar B., This address has been figured in one of the document seized during the searches conducted at the residence of Munvar Pasha, Karle Zenith, Kempapura, Bangalore which needs to be further verified and ascertained the ownership. He is suspected to be the brother of Kumar Naik and proprietor Ms. Maltesh Industries having PAN No. CWSPM0215M. #285, Bhagya Nidhi, Railway mens layout, 2nd Phase, Ullal Upanagar, ullalu Bangalore, Karnataka - 56. 18 Total 14 KIADB - sites Total No. of SQ Fts Name of the property owner Place of the property Total value of property Ashalatha w/o Kumar Naik, 2103, Karle Zenith, Kempapu ra, Bangalore 4103 Sq meters. - Plot Nos 3A5, 3A6, of Hardware Sector, Hitech Defence & Aerospace Park, Industrial Area, Bengaluru Urban Dist. Rs. 1,33,00,000/- - - - - - 15 Vehicles and other movable properties At time of search at the house of Sri. Munavar Pasha, Gold and silver articles belongs to the Kumar Naik were found and the details are as follows. Gold Silver Ornaments 1290 Gms of Gold and 9,226 Gms of Silver Rs. 64,00,00 0- 00 The Gold and Silver were measured and valued by registered Valuer namely Suresh. Silk Sarees 9 Nos. Rs. 2,00,000-00 (Approximate ly) Cash - Rs. 3,06,000-00 19 Yet to be ascertained Total - - - 16 Official income AGO's Salary (from date of joining to till date) AGO's wife Salary (from date of joining to till date) AGO's Son/Daughter Salary/Income (If not married) Ancestral property Income Land Income Income from site/others Loan Sanctioned (Income) Filled the loan amount (Expenditure) Yet to be ascertained 17 D.A. Calculation Total Value of Property Total Property 4,00,00,000.00 (aprox) Total Expenditure Total Property + Total Expenditure Total Income Disproportionate Income Percentage of disproportionate Income Sd/- (Basavaraj Magadum) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore.” (Emphasis added) 20 12. In the source information report, the column total years of service of the petitioner reads ‘not yet ascertained’. Therefore, the ACB did not even know how many years of service a public servant has put in. The check period which is the most important ingredient of a source information report is left vague by stating ‘from the date of joining service to till date’. Wife's designation, salary particulars, Annual Property Returns (‘APR’) etc. are not even looked into. APR of the petitioner is also not even looked into. What is seen is property details as per the records found during the search in connection with Crime No. 23 of 2022 of some other public servant. The official income at column No. 16 that is petitioner's salary and petitioner's wife's salary reads as ‘yet to be ascertained’. At column No. 17 value of total property is mentioned and percentage of disproportionate income is zero as it is left completely blank. It is this source information report that becomes a FIR under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act. Section 13(1)(b) deals with criminal misconduct against a public servant. The basis being the source information report, it is trite that the report assumes a great significance while imputing allegations of criminal misconduct. 13. The FIR is registered on 16-03-2022 and source information report is also drawn on 16-03-2022 which is ostensibly done at a jiffy. The Anti-Corruption Bureau which performs a very significant role in checking corruption amongst public servants cannot indulge itself in such casual act of drawing up the source information report on the instant, registering the FIR and conducting the search. The entire narration of allegation which would become criminal misconduct against the petitioner is on the basis of the records found in somebody else's house in connection with someone else's crime. Such a source information report against the petitioner is no report in the eye of law. 14. The law also contemplates conduct of a preliminary inquiry in cases of corruption alleged as against public servants. The Apex Court right from the judgment in the case of P. SIRAJUDDIN v. STATE OF MADRAS1 has clearly held that before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty, some suitable preliminary inquiry into the 21 allegations by a responsible officer should be made. It could be in the nature of source information report or otherwise. The observations of the Apex Court are as follows: “17. In our view the procedure adopted against the appellant before the laying of the first information report though not in terms forbidden by law, was so unprecedented and outrageous as to shock one's sense of justice and fairplay. No doubt when allegations about dishonesty of a person of the appellant's rank were brought to the notice of the Chief Minister it was his duty to direct as enquiry into the matter. The Chief Minister in our view pursued the right course. The High Court was not impressed by the allegation of the appellant that the Chief Minister was moved to take an initiative at the instance of person who was going to benefit by the retirement of the appellant and who was said to be a relation of the Chief Minister. The High Court rightly held that the relationship between the said person and the Chief Minister, if any, was so distant that it could not possibly have influenced him and we are of the same view. Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious mis-demeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case 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, specially one who like the appellant occupied 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 of taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner. The enquiring officer must not act under any preconceived idea of guilt of the person whose conduct was being enquired into or pursue the enquiry in such a manner as to lead to an inference that he was bent upon securing the conviction of the said person by 22 adopting measures which are of doubtful validity or sanction. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable. In ordinary departmental proceedings against a Government servant charged with delinquency, the normal practice before the issue of a charge-sheet is for someone in authority to take down statements of persons involved in the matter and to examine documents which have a bearing on the issue involved. It is only thereafter that a charge-sheet is submitted and a full-scale enquiry is launched. When the enquiry is to be held for the purpose of finding out whether criminal proceedings are to be restored to the scope thereof must be limited to the examination of persons who have knowledge of the affairs of the delinquent officer and documents bearing on the same to find out whether there is prima facie evidence of guilt of the officer. Thereafter the ordinary law of the land must take its course and further inquiry be proceeded with in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure by lodging a first information report.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The judgment in the case of P. SIRAJUDDIN was rendered 2 score and 10 years ago. The concept of conduct of preliminary inquiry has been reiterated by Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.2 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: Conclusion/Directions 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases 23 where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” 16. After 51 years of rendering the judgment in the case of P. SIRAJUDDIN (supra) the Apex Court in the case of CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA3 while following both the judgments i.e., Five Judge Bench in LALITA KUMARI and in P. SIRAJUDDIN (supra) has held as follows: 24 “12. As per the decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], the categories of cases in which preliminary enquiry may be made are as under: (Lalita Kumari case [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], SCC p. 61, para 120) “120.6. … (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” 13. In para 120, this Court concluded and issued directions as under: (Lalita Kumari case [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], SCC p. 61) “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 25 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” 26 14. In the context of offences relating to corruption, in para 117 in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], this Court also took note of the decision of this Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] in which case this Court expressed the need for a preliminary enquiry before proceeding against public servants. 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. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] 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. It is further observed that: (P. Sirajuddin case [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240], 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.” 27 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. 15.2. Even as held by this Court in CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1305], a GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. However, in an appropriate case, such as allegations of misconduct of corrupt practice by a public servant, before lodging the first information report and further conducting the investigation, if the preliminary enquiry is conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not, no fault can be found. Even at the stage of registering the FIR, what is required to be considered is whether the information given discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the 28 commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed, considering the observations made by this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage. … … … …. 18.13. After completing the enquiry, a final report along with the papers of the enquiry is required to be sent to the Director General, ACB. Even, while submitting the final report and the papers of the enquiry, which are the points to be considered and/or borne in mind are stated in Para 16 of the Manual. Only thereafter and if it is found that a cognizable offence is made out and there is substance in the allegations, an FIR would be lodged and further investigation will be carried out after following the procedure as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, a foolproof safeguard and procedure is provided before lodging an FIR/complaint before the Court against the public servant, who is facing the allegations of corrupt practice. However, as observed hereinabove, such an enquiry would be conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. As observed hereinabove, even at the stage of registering the first information report, the police officer is not required to be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is enough if the information discloses the commission of 29 a cognizable offence as the information only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, as such, holding such an enquiry, may be discrete/open enquiry, at pre-registration of FIR stage in the case of allegation of corrupt practice of accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, cannot be said to be per se illegal. 19. However, the next question posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether to what extent such an enquiry is permissible and what would be the scope and ambit of such an enquiry. By the impugned notice, impugned before the High Court, and during the course of the “open enquiry”, the appellant has been called upon to give his statement and he has been called upon to carry along with the information on the points, which are referred to hereinabove for the purpose of recording his statement. The information sought on the aforesaid points is having a direct connection with the allegations made against the appellant, namely, accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. However, such a notice, while conducting the “open enquiry”, shall be restricted to facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding his assets and known sources of income. The same cannot be said to be a fishing or roving enquiry. Such a statement cannot be said to be a statement under Section 160 and/or the statement to be recorded during the course of investigation as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a statement even cannot be used against the appellant during the course of trial. Statement of the appellant and the information so received during the course of discrete enquiry shall be only for the purpose to satisfy and find out whether an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 is disclosed. Such a statement cannot be said to be confessional in character, and as and when and/or if such a statement is considered to be confessional, in that case only, it can be said to be a statement which is self-incriminatory, which can be said to be impermissible in law. 30 20. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case as such the appellant has produced the relevant documents of some of the properties owned by him and the appellant has joined the “open enquiry”. It also appears from the counter filed on behalf of the Anti- Corruption Bureau that on the basis of the information given by the appellant, letters have been issued to various authorities/banks, seeking further and better particulars. Partial statement of the appellant has already been recorded. However, as observed hereinabove, such a statement/enquiry would be restricted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. Such a statement cannot be said to be a confessional statement. After having been satisfied and after conclusion of the enquiry and on the basis of the material collected, if it is found that there is substance in the allegations against the appellant and it discloses a cognizable offence, FIR will be lodged and the investigating agency has to collect the evidence/further evidence to substantiate the allegations/charge of accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. However, if during the enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage, if the appellant satisfies on production of the materials produced relating to his known sources of income and the assets, in that case, no FIR will be lodged and if he is not able to clarify his assets, vis-à-vis, known sources of income, then the FIR will be lodged and he will be subjected to trial. Therefore, as such, such an enquiry would be to safeguard his interest also which may avoid further harassment to him.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. On the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of P. SIRAJUDDIN, LALITA KUMARI and CHARANSINGH, if the case at hand is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is that the entire proceedings instituted by the ACB against the petitioner cannot but be termed to be a mockery of the procedure. The very perusal of the source information report which had to contain all the particulars would indicate that it does not contain any particulars. It was no source information report in the eye of 31 law. In cases where a public servant is charged with offences punishable under Section 13 of the Act to become punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, as they deal with amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income, every ingredient that is required to be assessed in the source report must be present. The check period, the period of service of the accused Government servant and the sources of income should be assessed albeit, by a preliminary inquiry to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the officer is liable to be proceeded against for criminal misconduct. 18. The afore-quoted incident of discovery of certain material allegedly belonging to the petitioner could at best have triggered the conduct of a preliminary enquiry and could not become the basis for registration of an FIR, as has been done. There is no preliminary inquiry worth the name that is even conducted by the ACB in the case of the petitioner as every act of the ACB i.e., preparation of the source information report, registration of FIR and conduct of search on the house of the petitioner have all happened on one single day - 24 hours. A source information report, according to the norm or procedure what is followed by the ACB, requires an Inspector of Police to conduct such enquiry and collect those documents which would become a part of a source information report and such source information report is to be placed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police who would then give his nod for registration of the crime. These procedures and the time required for these procedures are thrown to the winds. A perusal at the original records that were placed before the Court would also indicate no collection of any material, in the nature of preliminary inquiry or a source information report taking place prior to registration of the FIR. All that the file contains is the search conducted in Crime No. 23 of 2022 concerning some other officer and that material being used against the petitioner to register the crime in Crime No. 24 of 2022. Every record is sought to be built up subsequent to the said date i.e., the date of registration of the crime against the petitioner. 32 10. Further, this Court in the case of BALAKRISHNA H. N. V. STATE3, has held as follows: “…. ….. ….. 8. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as it is challenging the FIR the petitioner is before this Court. The ground urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that if a preliminary enquiry had been conducted as is required in law, it would clearly demonstrate that the properties on which the prosecution wants to place reliance upon to arrive at a fancy figure of 96.66% as disproportionate asset would have been obviated. Therefore, it is germane to notice the very source report that is registered against the petitioner which reads as follows: “…. …. …. ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ (J¸ï.f.N.) PËlÄA©PÀ »£Éß¯É: ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀ: ºÁ¸À£À f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉÆ¼À ºÉÆÃ§½ ºÁ®ÄªÀÄwÛUÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £ÀA.256, D±Á ¤®AiÀÄ, 16£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, 02£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ E°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ JA§ÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¨sÀªÀå²æÃgÀªÀgÀÄ UÀÈ»tÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 17 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï –E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï DV ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, 2016 gÀ°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÁV ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ºÉÆA¢ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÁV DV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ «ªÀgÀ PÀ¼ÀPÀAqÀAwgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1. ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï 2. ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 2005 3. FV£À ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀbÉÃj ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ 3 W.P.No.15886 of 2022 decided on 03-01-2023 33 4. ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À ºÁ®ÄªÀÄwÛUÀnÖ, ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉÆ¼À ºÉÆÃ§½, ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè. 5. ºÁ° ªÁ¸À ¸ÀÜ¼À £ÀA.256, D±Á ¤®AiÀÄ, 16£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, 02£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉ«UÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ ««zsÀ PÀqÉ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¹ÜgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉ«UÉ UÀt¤ÃAiÀÄªÁV ZÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹ÜgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Cfð¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢zÉ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è Cfð¹gÀÄªÀ ¹ÜgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ PÀæ.¸ÀA. ¹ÜgÁ¹ÛAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1 ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5 UÀÄAmÉ SÁ° eÁUÀ, ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ÀégÀ §qÁªÀuÉ, £ÀªÉÇÃzÀAiÀÄ ±Á¯É »A¨sÁUÀ, ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt, ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè - - 15,00,000-00 2 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.114/2 gÀ°è 5 UÀÄAmÉ SÁ° eÁUÀ, ±ÉlÖºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½, ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æ (¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥Àwß) - 40,00,000-00 3 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.114/5 gÀ°è 5 UÀÄAmÉ SÁ° eÁUÀ, ±ÉlÖºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½, ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÁ¸À£ f¯ÉèÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æ (¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥Àwß) - 25,00,000-00 4 10 ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½gÀÄªÀ PÀlÖqÀ, PÀAmÁæPÀÖgï PÀè¨ï »A¨sÁUÀ, ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï ¨ÉÃPÀj »A¨sÁUÀ, ZÀ¤ßUÀgÁAiÀÄ §qÁªÀuÉ, ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt, ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æ (¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥Àwß) - w½AiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ 34 MlÄÖ 80,00,000-00 ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è Cfð¹gÀÄªÀ ZÀgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ PÀæ.¸ÀA. ZÀgÁ¹ÛAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1. £Á®ÄÌ ZÀPÀæzÀ ªÁºÀ£À 01 ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ - 13,00,000-00 2. J¸ï.f.N. gÀªÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É½îAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï. ¸ÉÆÃ¸ïð ªÀiÁ»w ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ 5,00,000-00 3. J¸ï.f.N. gÀªÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ, E¯ÉQÖçPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¯ÉPÁÖç¤Pï ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï. ¸ÉÆÃ¸ïð ªÀiÁ»w ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ 5,00,000-00 MlÄÖ 23,00,000-00 CfðvÀ ¹ÜgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À MlÄÖ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 80,00,000-00 CfðvÀ ZÀgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å MlÄÖ gÀÆ. 23,00,000-00 CfðvÀ ¹ÜgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ZÀgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À MlÄÖ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1,03,00,000-00 ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è£À CAzÁdÄ RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ: ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀV¹gÀÄªÀ RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ «ªÀgÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EzÉ. 1. ¹ÜgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À RjÃ¢ PÁ®zÀ°è ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄªÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ ªÉZÀÑ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉjUÉ–CAzÁdÄ 4,00,000-00 2. ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ RZÀÄð-CAzÁdÄ 2,00,000-00 3. PËAlÄ©PÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÉZÀÑ CAzÁdÄ 8,00,000-00 4. ªÁºÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÉZÀÑ, zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ, ±ÀÄ¨sÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁgÁA¨sÀ EvÁå¢ CAzÁdÄ 1,00,000-00 ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ RZÀÄð gÀÆ. 15,00,000-00 ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÀÄlÄA§zÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ §AzÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ: 35 PÀæ.¸ÀA. DzÁAiÀÄzÀ «ªÀgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À°è 1 J¸ï.f.N.gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ 60,00,000-00 ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ §®è ªÀÄÆ®zÀ UÉÆvÁÛzÀ DzÁAiÀÄ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À°è 60,00,000-00 ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è vÀ£Àß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è Cfð¹gÀÄªÀ D¹Û, DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å :: WÉÆÃµÁégÉ :: 1 CfðvÀ ¹ÜgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀgÀ D¹Û CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1,03,00,000-00 2 vÉÆqÀV¹gÀÄªÀ RZÀÄð CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 15,00,000-00 D¹Û+RZÀÄð=MlÄÖ ªÀiË®å 1,18,00,000-00 §®è ªÀÄÆ®zÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ 60,00,000-00 UÀ½¹gÀÄªÀ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj CPÀæªÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 58,00,000-00 ±ÉÃPÀqÁªÁgÀÄ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¥ÀæªÀiÁt 96.66% EzÀ®èzÉÃ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ D¹Û¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À Cdð£É eÉÆvÉUÉ vÀªÀÄä PËlÄA©PÀ ªÉZÀÑPÁÌV, ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀPÁÌV vÀªÀÄä ¨sÉÆÃUÀfÃªÀ£ÀPÁÌV, ±ÀÄ¨sÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁgÀA¨sÀUÀ½UÁV, ¥ÀæªÁ¸ÀPÁÌV ºÁUÀÆ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÀÄðUÀ½UÁV AiÀÄxÉÃZÀÑªÁV ºÀt ªÀåAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ gÀºÀ¸Àå PÁAiÀÄðZÁgÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï. gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀAvÉ DzÁAiÀÄ, RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D¹Û¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÉÆwÛgÀÄªÀ DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½UÉ C¸ÀªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ DyðPÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢zÉ. ¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.58,00,000-00 (LªÀvÉÛAlÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) PÀÆÌ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀjAiÀiÁV ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 96.66% gÀµÀÄÖ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj D¹Û ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ FªÀgÉV£À gÀºÀ¸Àå «ZÁgÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ§A¢zÀÄÝ, ªÀÄvÀÛµÀÄÖ £ÉÊd ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ CvÀåªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ D¹Û UÀ½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ¤ªÉÃ¢¹PÉÆArzÉ.” In terms of the source report what could be unmistakably gathered is that there is no check period indicated. The properties of the wife are taken at Rs.80/- lakhs and the income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.23/- lakhs totaling to Rs.1.03 crores to be the asset of the petitioner. The petitioner has appended to the petition several documents with regard to possession of properties of his wife. 9. The petitioner joined service on 01-09-2005, gets married to one Smt. C. Bhavya, daughter of one 36 C.N.Chandregowda on 10-09-2007. It is claimed that the father-in-law of the petitioner is a landlord, contractor and businessman and had acquired certain properties long before marriage of his daughter with the petitioner. Those properties which were acquired prior to the marriage were gifted in favour of the wife of the petitioner. Likewise certain properties which were acquired by the father-in-law of the petitioner way back in the year 2000 long before the petitioner joined service of the State Government are gifted to the petitioner in the year 2020. The source report takes those properties to be the properties belonging to the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner depicting disproportionate asset to be 96.66%. The source report is drawn on 14-03-2022 and is placed before the competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police who endorses that a crime be registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act. The gap between submission of source report before the competent authority and a direction being issued for registration of the crime is less than 24 hours. This would not vitiate the proceedings though contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the contrary. 10. The Apex Court has clearly held that in cases where the allegation is disproportionate assets to the known sources of income, prior to registration of crime or drawing up of source report, a preliminary enquiry is not only desirable but necessary, as it would avoid arbitrariness or arriving at fancy figure and hauling a Government servant into the web of crime which would lead to dire consequences. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN v. ACB4 (supra) while considering an offence that is akin to what is alleged in the case at hand, has held as follows: “…. …. …. “8. The whole challenge to the FIR is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case referred to Supra. While holding that in some of the case to harass the parties there is chance of filing false FIRs and also in some cases the reluctant police registers the FIR in cognizable cases, the Hon’ble Supreme 4 W.P.No.43817 of 2018 decided on 21-04-2021 37 Court laid down certain directions for registration of FIR in para 120 of the judgment. 9. Para 120 of the said judgment included the following directions: ”120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first information forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: 38 (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Reading of para 120.6 of the judgment makes it clear that in corruption cases, the preliminary enquiry may be made. The word ‘‘may’’ indicates the desirability and not mere arbitrary discretion. The challenge to the FIR is on the ground that no such preliminary enquiry was conducted and in the source report, the inspector put fancy figures only for the purpose of registering the FIR to harass the petitioner and stall the promotion. 11. To substantiate such contention, along with the petition, the copies of the sale deeds, lease deeds or title deeds relating to some of those properties are produced. Regarding item No.1 i.e., house No.67 of Ganganagar, Bengaluru, in the source report, the valuation is shown as 16 lakhs. But as per the sale deed, the said property was purchased in the year 2007 for consideration of Rs.14.5 lakhs/-. The building constructed on the said site is valued at Rs.1 Crore 50 lakhs/-. But according to the petitioner that is an inflated figure and he had informed the department about the construction of the said house. 12. The source report states the value of item No.2 petrol bump is Rs.40 lakhs, whereas the petitioner produces the registered lease deed to show that the said property is not owned by the petitioner but taken on lease. The property at item No.3 was purchased prior to check period. The property at item No.6 is shown worth Rs.40 lakhs in the source report, but in the registered sale deed, the consideration of the same is shown as Rs.1.5 lakhs. Similarly, when source report states the value of item No.7 as Rs.20 lakhs, the sale deed is for Rs.1.85 lakhs. 39 13. It was also contended that despite the wife of the petitioner having independent income, her income was considered as the petitioner’s income. Therefore, it was contended that if a preliminary enquiry was held calling upon the petitioner to explain the alleged disproportionate pecuniary resources that could have cleared the matter. It was also contended that if on securing the explanation of the petitioner still the respondent found that there is material to register the FIR, that could have been done. 14. The aforesaid sale deeds and the other materials show that value of the properties quoted in the source report was much higher than the rates quoted in the title documents. Petitioner has also produced the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of his wife to the effect that from 1988-92 to 2017-18 every year she has paid income tax. The said document further indicates that during the said period, she has paid in all Rs.1,58,85,469/- as income tax. 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 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. 17. It was further held that during the enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage, if the accused satisfies producing the materials relating to his known sources of 40 income and the assets, no FIR will be lodged. It was held that if accused is not able to clarify his assets vis-à-vis, known sources of income, then the FIR will be lodged and he will be subjected to investigation. It was held that such an enquiry would be to safeguard the interest of the accused also which may avoid further harassment to him. 18. The judgment in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Others in 2018 3 SCC 104 was relied upon by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor to contend that, it is sufficient if FIR discloses prima facie a cognizable offence and the High Court cannot act like an Investigating Agency nor can exercise powers like an Appellate Court. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the said proposition. However, this Court also has to examine whether there was compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case. As already pointed out, there is no such compliance in the case on hand. 19. Only for the limited purpose of finding out whether the source report was based on any material, the title deeds produced by the petitioner with regard to some of the properties mentioned above were compared and examined. The respondent cannot dispute the consideration mentioned in those registered sale deeds at this length of time. They prima facie show that without calling upon the petitioner to show the value of those properties or without any concrete basis in the source report atleast for some of the items, the fancy value are quoted. 20. Under such circumstance, the judgment in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel’s case referred to supra no where advances the case of the respondent. Since the source report, order to register the FIR and the registration of the FIR were contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case and Charansingh’s case, they amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 21. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. This order does not preclude the respondent to conduct the preliminary enquiry as contemplated in Lalita Kumari’s and Charansingh’s case and if any material is found to proceed against the petitioner.” (Emphasis supplied) 41 It is also germane to notice the order passed by another co- ordinate Bench of this Court in J.GNANENDRA KUMAR v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER5 (supra) wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. A perusal of the Source Report indicates that the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of the properties disproportionate to the known source of income to an extent of 89.60% from the period 1998 to March 2022. Perusal of the statement furnished along with the memo filed by the petitioner indicates that the immovable properties at Sl.Nos.4 and 5 in the source report alleged to have been held by the wife was sold on 07.11.2019 and 26.06.2019, for a total sum of Rs.33,98,000/-. The statement further indicates that net salary of the petitioner is Rs.1.00 crore as against Rs.82,32,123/- and the rental income received by the wife of the petitioner is Rs.2,42,00,000/- which is evident from the income tax returns. However, in the Source Report it is shown as Rs.19,50,000/-. The statement further indicates that the petitioner has contributed a sum of Rs.70,43,660/- towards Provident fund and it is certified by the Accountant General and the said contribution is also not taken into account in the Source Report. The statement furnishing the said information is not disputed by the respondent-ACB. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and another supra at para 33 has held that: “Conducting preliminary enquiry would not take away from the ultimate goal of prosecuting accused persons in a timely manner. However, if the CBI chooses not to hold a preliminary enquiry, the accused cannot demand it as a matter of right.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Supra has held that the preliminary enquiry warranted in Lalitha Kumari is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases and 5 W.P. No.8170 of 2022 decided on 20-07-2022 42 preliminary enquiry to be conducted depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and there are no fixed parameters on which such enquiry can be said to be conducted. In the present case, respondent-ACB has stated that after conducting discreet enquiry source report has been prepared by the officer concerned. However, certain immovable properties sold prior to preparation of the report and also rental income of the wife of the petitioner and also the contribution made by petitioner towards provident fund is not taken into account in the source report, and if the same are deducted, inevitably the assets possessed by the Petitioner is -9.3% of the known source of income. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner, whether the conducting of preliminary enquiry was mandatory or not before registration of the FIR in the present case need not be gone into.”. In the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN (supra) the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly held that conduct of a preliminary enquiry is necessary for the reason that it would avoid fancy figures being quoted in the source report which would be without application of mind and has quashed the proceedings at the stage of FIR reserving liberty to conduct preliminary enquiry and proceed against the petitioner therein. 11. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CBI v. THOMMANDRU HANNAH VIJAYALAKSHMI & ANOTHER6 (supra). The Apex Court, in the said case, has formulated a specific issue with regard to the preliminary enquiry being mandatory or otherwise. The Apex Court holds as follows: “D Whether a Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR D.1 Precedents of this Court 14. Before proceeding with our analysis of the issue, it is important to understand what previous judgments of this Court have stated on the issue of whether CBI is required to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry before the 6 2021 SCC OnLine 923 43 registration of an FIR, especially in cases of alleged corruption against public servants. 15. The first of these is a judgment of a two Judge Bench in P Sirajuddin (supra), in which it was observed that before a public servant is charged with acts of dishonesty amounting to serious misdemeanor, some suitable preliminary enquiry must be conducted in order to obviate incalculable harm to the reputation of that person. Justice G K Mitter held that: “17…Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case 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, specially one who like the appellant occupied 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…” (emphasis supplied) 16. The above decision was followed by another two Judge Bench in Nirmal Singh Kahlon (supra), where it was observed that in accordance with the CBI Manual, the CBI may only be held to have established a prima facie case upon the completion of a Preliminary Enquiry. Justice S B Sinha held thus: “30. Lodging of a first information report by CBI is governed by a manual. It may hold a preliminary inquiry; it has been given the said power in Chapter VI of the CBI Manual. A prima facie case may be held to have been established only on completion of a preliminary enquiry.” 17. The most authoritative pronouncement of law emerges from the decision of a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra). The issue before the Court was whether “a police officer is bound to register a first information report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973…or the police officer has the power to conduct a ‘preliminary inquiry’ in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same”. Answering this question on behalf of the Bench, Chief Justice P Sathasivam held that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal 44 Procedure 197355, a police officer need not conduct a preliminary enquiry and must register an FIR when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Specifically with reference to the provisions of the CBI Manual, the decision noted: “89. Besides, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the special procedures prescribed under the CBI Manual to be read into Section 154. It is true that the concept of “preliminary inquiry” is contained in Chapter IX of the Crime Manual of CBI. However, this Crime Manual is not a statute and has not been enacted by the legislature. It is a set of administrative orders issued for internal guidance of the CBI officers. It cannot supersede the Code. Moreover, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the Code itself, the provisions of the CBI Crime Manual cannot be relied upon to import the concept of holding of preliminary inquiry in the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to submit that CBI is constituted under a special Act namely, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and it derives its power to investigate from this Act.” (emphasis supplied) 18. However, the Court was also cognizant of the possible misuse of the powers under criminal law resulting in the registration of frivolous FIRs. Hence, it formulated “exceptions” to the general rule that an FIR must be registered immediately upon the receipt of information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. The Constitution Bench held: “115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time… […] 117. In the context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants. […] 119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the 45 police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.” (emphasis supplied) 19. The judgment provides the following conclusions: “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. […] 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: […] 46 (d) Corruption cases […] The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” (emphasis supplied) 20. The Constitution Bench thus held that a Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even when it is conducted, the scope of a Preliminary Enquiry is not to ascertain the veracity of the information, but only whether it reveals the commission of a cognizable offence. The need for a Preliminary Enquiry will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As an illustration, “corruption cases” fall in that category of cases where a Preliminary Enquiry “may be made”. The use of the expression “may be made” goes to emphasize that holding a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory. Dwelling on the CBI Manual, the Constitution Bench held that : (i) it is not a statute enacted by the legislature; and (ii) it is a compendium of administrative orders for the internal guidance of the CBI. 21. The judgment in Lalita Kumari (supra) was analyzed by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Yashwant Sinha (supra) where the Court refused to grant the relief of registration of an FIR based on information submitted by the appellant-informant. In his concurring opinion, Justice K M Joseph described that a barrier to granting the relief of registration of an FIR against a public figure would be the observations of this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) noting that a Preliminary Enquiry may be desirable before doing so. Justice Joseph observes: “108. Para 120.6 [of Lalita Kumari] deals with the type of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made. Corruption cases are one of the categories of cases where a preliminary inquiry may be conducted… […] 110. In para 117 of Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], this Court referred to the decision in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and took the view that in the context of offences related to corruption in the said decision, the Court has expressed a need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants. […] 47 112. […] 47 112. In Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], one of the contentions which was pressed before the Court was that in certain situations, preliminary inquiry is necessary. In this regard, attention of the Court was drawn to CBI Crime Manual… […] 114. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], had before it, the CBI Crime Manual. It also considered the decision of this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] which declared the necessity for preliminary inquiry in offences relating to corruption. Therefore, the petitioners may not be justified in approaching this Court seeking the relief of registration of an FIR and investigation on the same as such. This is for the reason that one of the exceptions where immediate registration of FIR may not be resorted to, would be a case pointing fingers at a public figure and raising the allegation of corruption. This Court also has permitted preliminary inquiry when there is delay, laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over three months. A preliminary inquiry, it is to be noticed in para 120.7, is to be completed within seven days.” (emphasis supplied) 22. The decision of a two Judge Bench in Managipet (supra) thereafter has noted that while the decision in Lalita Kumari (supra) held thats a Preliminary Enquiry was desirable in cases of alleged corruption, that does not vest a right in the accused to demand a Preliminary Enquiry. Whether a Preliminary Enquiry is required or not will depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and it cannot be said to be mandatory requirement without which a case cannot be registered against the accused in corruption cases. Justice Hemant Gupta held thus: “28. In Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], the Court has laid down the cases in which a preliminary inquiry is warranted, more so, to avoid an abuse of the process of law rather than vesting any right in favour of an accused. Herein, the argument made was that if a police officer is doubtful about the veracity of an accusation, he has to conduct a preliminary inquiry and that in certain appropriate cases, it would be proper for such officer, on the receipt of a complaint of a cognizable offence, to satisfy himself that 48 prima facie, the allegations levelled against the accused in the complaint are credible… 29. The Court concluded that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation… 30. It must be pointed out that this Court has not held that a preliminary inquiry is a must in all cases. A preliminary enquiry may be conducted pertaining to matrimonial disputes/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, etc. The judgment of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] does not state that proceedings cannot be initiated against an accused without conducting a preliminary inquiry. […] 32…The scope and ambit of a preliminary inquiry being necessary before lodging an FIR would depend upon the facts of each case. There is no set format or manner in which a preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. The objective of the same is only to ensure that a criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That is the test laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524]. 33. In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets of the accused officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein, relevant information was available with the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other manner on the basis of the credible information received by him. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed. Reference in this regard, is made to a judgment 49 of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] wherein, this Court held inter alia that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 34. 34. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient.” (emphasis supplied) 23. In Charansingh (supra), the two Judge bench was confronted with a challenge to a decision to hold a Preliminary Enquiry. The court adverted to the ACB Manual in Maharashtra and held that a statement provided by an individual in an “open inquiry” in the nature of a Preliminary Enquiry would not be confessional in nature and hence, the individual cannot refuse to appear in such an inquiry on that basis. Justice M R Shah, writing for the two Judge bench consisting also of one of us (Justice D Y Chandrachud) held: “11. However, whether in a case of a complaint against a public servant regarding accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, which can be said to be an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is permissible or not and/or it is desirable or not, if any decision is required, the same is governed by the decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524]. 50 11.1. While considering the larger question, whether police is duty-bound to register an FIR and/or it is mandatory for registration of FIR on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence and whether it is mandatory or the police officer has option, discretion or latitude of conducting preliminary enquiry before registering FIR, this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] has observed that it is mandatory to register an FIR on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence and it is the general rule. However, while holding so, this Court has also considered the situations/cases in which preliminary enquiry is permissible/ desirable. While holding that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation and the same is the general rule and must be strictly complied with, this Court has carved out certain situations/cases in which the preliminary enquiry is held to be permissible/desirable before registering/lodging of an FIR. It is further observed that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. It is 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 each case. […] 14. In the context of offences relating to corruption, in para 117 in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], this Court also took note of the decision of this Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] in which case this Court expressed the need for a preliminary enquiry before proceeding against public servants. […] 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 51 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. 15.2. Even as held by this Court in CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1305], a GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. However, in an appropriate case, such as allegations of misconduct of corrupt practice by a public servant, before lodging the first information report and further conducting the investigation, if the preliminary enquiry is conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not, no fault can be found. Even at the stage of registering the FIR, what is required to be considered is whether the information given discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed, considering the observations made by this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC 52 (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti- Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Hence, all these decisions do not mandate that a Preliminary Enquiry must be conducted before the registration of an FIR in corruption cases. An FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary Enquiry has not been conducted. The decision in Managipet (supra) dealt specifically with a case of Disproportionate Assets. In that context, the judgment holds that where relevant information regarding prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence is available, the officer recording the FIR can proceed against the accused on the basis of the information without conducting a Preliminary Enquiry. 25. This conclusion is also supported by the judgment of another Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami (supra). The judgment was in context of Section 5(1)(e) of the old Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which is similar to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It was argued that : (i) a public servant must be afforded an opportunity to explain the alleged Disproportionate Assets before an Investigating Officer; (ii) this must then be included and explained by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet; and (iii) the failure to do so would render the charge sheet invalid. Rejecting this submission, the Constitution Bench held that doing so would elevate the Investigating Officer to the role of an enquiry officer or a Judge and that their role was limited only to collect material in order to ascertain whether the alleged offence has been committed by the public servant. In his opinion for himself and Justice Venkatachaliah, Justice K Jagannatha Shetty held thus: “75…since the legality of the charge-sheet has been impeached, we will deal with that contention also. Counsel laid great emphasis on the expression “for which he cannot satisfactorily account” used in clause (e) of Section 5(1) of the Act. He argued that that term means that the public servant is entitled to an opportunity before the Investigating Officer to explain the alleged disproportionality between assets and the known sources of income. The Investigating Officer is required to consider his explanation and the 53 charge-sheet filed by him must contain such averment. The failure to mention that requirement would vitiate the charge-sheet and renders it invalid. This submission, if we may say so, completely overlooks the powers of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is only required to collect material to find out whether the offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of the investigation, he may examine the accused. He may seek his clarification and if necessary he may cross check with him about his known sources of income and assets possessed by him. Indeed, fair investigation requires as rightly stated by Mr. A.D. Giri, learned Solicitor General, that the accused should not be kept in darkness. He should be taken into confidence if he is willing to cooperate. But to state that after collection of all material the Investigating Officer must give an opportunity to the accused and call upon him to account for the excess of the assets over the known sources of income and then decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or not, would be elevating the Investigating Officer to the position of an enquiry officer or a judge. The Investigating Officer is not holding an enquiry against the conduct of the public servant or determining the disputed issues regarding the disproportionality between the assets and the income of the accused. He just collects material from all sides and prepares a report which he files in the court as charge-sheet.” (emphasis supplied) 26. Therefore, since an accused public servant does not have a right to be afforded a chance to explain the alleged Disproportionate Assets to the Investigating Officer before the filing of a charge sheet, a similar right cannot be granted to the accused before the filing of an FIR by making a Preliminary Enquiry mandatory. 27. Having revisited the precedents of this Court, it is now necessary to consider the provisions of the CBI Manual. D.2 CBI Manual 28. In the judgment in Vineet Narain (supra), as three Judge Bench of this Court noted that the provisions of the CBI Manual must be followed by the officers of the CBI strictly, and disciplinary action should be taken against those who deviate from them. Chief Justice J S Verma noted: 54 “58. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby direct as under: I. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) […] 12. The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the CrPC provides essential guidelines for the CBI's functioning. It is imperative that the CBI adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the officials concerned.” 29. In the later judgment of a two judge Bench in Shashikant (supra), its was held that the CBI cannot be faulted for conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in accordance with the CBI Manual. Justice S B Sinha held: “9…It is also not disputed that the CBI Manual was made by the Central Government providing for detailed procedure as regards the mode and manner in which complaints against public servants are to be dealt with. […] 11. The CBI Manual provides for a preliminary inquiry. By reason thereof a distinction has been made between a preliminary inquiry and a regular case. A preliminary inquiry in terms of para 9.1 of the CBI Manual may be converted into a regular case as soon as sufficient material becomes available to show that prima facie there has been commission of a cognizable offence. […] 19. When an anonymous complaint is received, no investigating officer would initiate investigative process immediately thereupon. It may for good reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein. […] 25…The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual and in particular when it was required to inquire into the allegation of the corruption on the part of some public servants, recourse to the provisions of the Manual cannot be said to be unfair…” 55 (emphasis supplied) 30. In Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), a two judge Bench observed that the provisions of the CBI Manual require strict compliance. Justice B S Chauhan held: “24…the CBI Manual, being based on statutory provisions of CrPC, provides for guidelines which require strict compliance. More so, in view of the fact that the ratio of the judgment of this Court in M.M. Rajendran [State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran, (1998) 9 SCC 268 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1000] has been incorporated in the CBI Manual, the CBI Manual itself is the best authority to determine the issue at hand. The court has to read the relevant provisions of the CBI Manual alone and no judgment of this Court can be a better guiding factor under such a scenario.” 31. Hence, it is necessary to scrutinize the provisions of the CBI Manual. Chapter 8 of the CBI Manual is titled “Complaints and Source Information”. Para 8.1 notes that the CBI must register every complaint it receives, whatever be its source, before it starts verifying it. Para 8.6(ii) provides that verification can be undertaken for “[c]omplaints containing specific and definite allegations involving corruption or serious misconduct against public servants etc., falling within the ambit of CBI, which can be verified”. Paras 8.8-8.9 describe the process of verification where the officers are to examine records informally and discreetly without making written requisitions, and that this process ordinarily should not take more than three months but can take up to four months for complicated cases. Para 8.24 indicates that the officer entrusted with verification must submit a detailed report at the end of the process with specific recommendations, including whether a Preliminary Enquiry is required or if a Regular Case should be registered directly. 32. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of “Source Information”. Both during the course of the hearing and in the affidavit filed by CBI, it has been explained that CBI found information and documents while investigating another case. Para 8.26 of the CBI Manual notes that every officer of the CBI can develop source information “regarding graft, misuse of official position, possession of disproportionate assets, fraud, embezzlement, serious economic offences, illegal trading in narcotics and psychotropic substances, counterfeiting of currency, smuggling of antiques, acts endangering wildlife and environment, cybercrimes, serious frauds of banking/financial institutions, smuggling of arms and ammunition, forgery of passports, etc. and 56 other matters falling within the purview of CBI and verify the same to ascertain whether any prima facie material is available to undertake an open probe”. However, while doing so, they are to keep their superior officer ‘well informed’. Further, para 8.27 describes the process once such “source information” is developed and submitted to the superior officer. It reads as follows: “8.27. The source information once developed must be submitted in writing giving all available details with specific acts of omissions and commissions and copies of documents collected discreetly. The internal vigilance enquiries or departmental enquiry reports should normally not be used as basis for submitting the source information. The SP concerned after satisfying himself that there is prima facie material meriting action by CBI and further verification is likely to result in registration of a regular case, would order verification if it falls within his competence. In the cases which are within the competence of higher officers, he will forward his detailed comments to the DIG and obtain orders from superior officer competent to order registration. The verification of SIRs must begin only after the competent authority has approved its registration. At this stage a regular SIR number will be assigned to the SIR which will also be entered in the source information sub-module of Crimes Module with all other details.” 33. The superior officer thus has to verify whether the developed “source information” prima facie would result in the registration of a case by the CBI; if yes, they then have to direct the verification of such information. Verification is governed by para 8.29, which speaks of a process similar to para 8.9. Para 8.32 provides that verification of “source information” shall be completed within three months and approval of the Competent Authority is required to carry out verification beyond that period. Similar to para 8.24, under para 8.33, the officer entrusted with verification has to submit a report with specific recommendations on whether a Preliminary Enquiry is required or if a Regular Case should be registered directly.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court considers entire spectrum of law and at sub-para 15.1 of paragraph 23 holds that an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible; not only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where the allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring assets/properties 57 disproportionate to his known sources of income. This cannot be demanded as a matter or right is what is held, apart from holding that there cannot be a hearing given to the accused prior to drawing up of a source report or registration of a crime. The Apex Court nevertheless holds that the preliminary inquiry is not only desirable but necessary in such cases. At paragraph 33 the Apex Court holds that the superior officer thus has to verify whether the developed source information prima facie would result in the registration of a case; if yes, they then will have to direct verification of such information. Though the entire verification was governed by the CBI manual which the Apex Court had already held that it should be strictly and scrupulously followed, the Apex Court holds that preliminary inquiry would not be a matter of right or necessary in every case. 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 two, 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, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime and pass the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR in Crime No.6 of 2022 registered on 15-03-2022 and pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru stands quashed. 58 (ii) Notwithstanding quashment of the aforementioned FIR, liberty is reserved to the respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta to draw up a source report and register FIR against the petitioner strictly in consonance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.H.VIJAYALAKSHMI and that of this Court in the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN (supra).” In the light of the afore-quoted judgments what would unmistakably emerge is, the necessity and imperativeness of conduct of preliminary enquiry prior to registration of the crime. The coordinate Bench clearly holds that the source report is erroneously drawn and figures are fancifully shown. Be that as it may, these generally would require a trial. 11. In the light of the legal issues projected in the case at hand being answered by the coordinate Bench supra, which has been followed by this Bench in plethora of cases, the unmistakable inference would be obliteration of the crime with the observations that are made by the coordinate Bench in the judgment quoted supra. Hence, I deem it appropriate to follow suit by observing that 59 the 1st respondent is at liberty to register the FIR in a manner known to law. 12. For aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) FIR dated 30-05-2023 registered by the 1st respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta against the petitioner in Crime No.26 of 2023 stands quashed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA bkp CT:MJ

SRI H J RAMESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judgment text