P PARTHASARADHI RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Superintendent of Excise. On 1-3-1972 a first Information Report was registered against the petitioner for an offence under Section 5 (2) read with S. 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and submitted by the Antl Corruption Bureau to the Special Judge, Hyderabad. I may mention here that the offence under S. 5 (1) (e) consists of the possession, for which a public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Investigation into the offence is stated to be still in progress. The Board of Revenue served a notice on the petitioner on 20-4 1972 and again on 16.3.73 calling upon the petitioner to furnish particulars of movable and immoveable properties held or acquired by him or any member of his family. The petitioner apprehended that the information sought from him by the BoaVd of Renenue was intended to be used against him in the criminal case. He, therefore, filed W. P. No. 179/1973 seeking to have the notice quashed on the ground that it infringed his fundamental right against testimonial compulsion guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Krishna Rao, J, dismissed the Writ Petition, without going into the merits, on the ground that it was open to the petitioner to raise this objection before the authority concerned. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Board of Revenue objecting to furnish the information sought from him. The Board, however, claimed, by its proceeding dated 26.5.1973, that it had the right to call for the information under Rule 9 (8) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. The Board directed the petitioner to furnish the information within a week on pain of disciplinary action. The petitioner has once again moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prays that the proceedings of the Board dated 26.5.1973 may be quashed. It is alleged in the writ petition that the object of seeking the information from the petitioner is only to make it available to the prosecution in the criminal case it is urged that after the registration of the First information Report there was no method by which the prosecuting agency could compel the petitioner to furnish information about the properties possessed by the petitioner or his relatives. It is alleged that the prosecuting agency had resorted to this method of obtaining information from the petitioner since it was legally impermissible for it to get the Information from the petitioner. It is urged that what the procecuting agency could not achieve directly it should not be allowed to achieve it indirectly. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board of Revenue, while it is admitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had requested the Board for copies of the particulars of properties possessed by the petitioner, it is denied that the Board intends to furnish the particulars, if any, given to it by the petitioner to the Anti-Corruption Bureau unless it is compelled to do so by legal process.

(2.) The question for consideration is whether the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution is infringed by the insistence of the Board that the petitioner should furnish particulars of the properties possessed by him and his relatives, in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner on a charge under S. 5 (l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Article 20(3) is as follows :-

(3.) It is unnecessary to trace the historical background of the right against self-lncrimination except to say that though in its origin it was a protest against the inquisitorial method of interrogation, very often, now a days, Its shelter is claimed to protect the guilty, indeed it led the Supreme court of the United States of America to observe at one stage,