RAJINDER DASS GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Mr. D.C.Mathur, Senior Advocate, is in regard to the essentials of the order required to be issued under second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) for investigation into an offence under Section 13(1 )(e) of the said Act.

(2.) Section 13(1)(e) brings a public servant within the definition of "criminal misconduct" under Section 13 of the Act 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 for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Section 17, which speaks of the persons authorised to investigate the offences under the Act lays down that in case of Delhi Special Police Establishment, no officer below the rank of an Inspector of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under the Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class. The second proviso to Section 17, which is relevant for the purpose of the issues raised in this petition reads as under-

(3.) The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are that on 21.1.1986, an FIR-bearing No.RC-1/86/SIU (III) was registered by SPE, Delhi, commonly known as Central Bureau of Investigation, on a source .information against the present petitioner under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(e) of the old Act. In this FIR, it was mentioned that information had been received from a reliable source that the petitioner a Joint Director of Industries, Delhi Administration had been indulging in corruption and obtaining large sums of money by dubious and corrupt means and had invested money, thus acquired, in purchasing moveable and immovable properties in the name of his parents, relatives as well as in his own name, which were disproportional to the known sources of his income. It was also recorded that according to the information received, he was in possession of costly items at his residence and he standard of living was very high and beyond his means. The details of five immovable properties, allegedly acquired by him through illegal and corrupt means were recorded in the FIR besides recording his total salary earned so far, which was much less that the value of his assets. The last para of the FIR, which would require consideration to this Court reads as under-