H A KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant is a Class-I officer of Karnataka Administrative Service. On 24-8-1989 a report was drawn up against him under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging therein that he has assets disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation the Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta authorised the Investigating Officer to submit a 'B' report before the Special Judge, Bangalore where the matter was pending and after issuance of a public notice in the prescribed form inviting objections to the aforesaid 'B' report from the interested persons by order dated 11-4-1991, the said 'B' report was accepted by the learned Special Judge. Properties of the appellant which had been earlier attached were directed to be released. On 25-7-95 the Supdt. of Police Karnataka Lokayukta authorised the Deputy Supdt. of Police to investigate into the assets of the appellant and find out whether an offence has been committed under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the same day an FIR was filed alleging commission of offence against the appellant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the gravamen of the allegation is that between the period from 1-8-78 to 25-7-95 the appellant has acquired assets amounting to Rs.58,77,000/- as against his known source of income of Rs. 9,90,000/- and thereby the disproportion is to the tune of Rs. 52,17,000/-. The appellant filed a Criminal Petition before the High Court of Karnataka invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the FIR in LAC Crime No. 21 of 95 inter alia on the ground that Crime No. 22 of 89 having been registered against the appellant for a check period 1-8-79 till 24-8-89 and after due investigation a 'B' report having been filed and the same being accepted it was not proper for the Investigating Authority to file another FIR which includes the earlier check period of 1-8-78 till 24-8-89. The learned Judge of the High Court, however, was not persuaded to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and on examining the FIR and the allegations made therein came to the conclusion that it was a set of fresh allegations in respect of fresh alleged assets during a fresh check period and, as such, question of quashing the FIR does not arise. It is against the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge of Karnataka High Court the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Sibbal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the assets of the appellant for the period 1-8-78 till 24-8-89 having been the subject matter of an investigation pursuant to Crime Case No. 22 of 89 and a 'B' form having been filed by the Investigating Agency which was approved by the Magistrate, inclusion of the said period in the fresh FIR is itself bad and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. Mr. Sibbal, also contended that in view of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Agency has the right to file fresh report on the basis of fresh materials but that not having been done the impugned FIR for the period 1-8-78 till 25-7-95 cannot be sustained. According to Mr. Sibbal the very fact that the Investigating Agency is not aware of the earlier criminal proceeding and the investigation thereupon which ultimately ended in a 'B' form and accepted by the Court indicates the total non-application of mind and pursuing the appellant maliciously and, therefore, the Court should interfere with the proceeding. According to Mr. Sibbal after the FIR is given whatever statements are received are in course of investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that being the position there cannot be two FIRs for the period 1-8-78 till 24-8-89. The learned counsel also urged that in view of the provisions contained in Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the explanation offered by the accused in respect of the prior proceedings having been accepted the said assets could not have been again taken into account for a subsequent criminal case. Mr. Sibbal also further submitted that in any view of the matter the assets of the Government servant are to be valued on the date of acquisition and not on the date of verifying of the fact and the very asset which was valued in course of earlier proceeding at Rs. one lakh should not have been valued at Rs. three lakhs or Rs. Four lakhs, as in the present case and such valuation itself is an unfair investigation causing undue harassment to the accused appellant.