P V PAVITHRAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed for quashing the First Information Report in crime No. 7/ACB-Cr. II. 84 dt. 8-3-1984 on the Hie of the Special Judge for ACB & SPE Cases, Hyderabad. The petitioner is an Indian Police Service Officer at the relevant time working as Commissioner of Weights,and Measures, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner alleges that he is harassed by registering a case against him under Section 5 (l)(a) read with Section 5 (2) of the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 in the F.I.R. The allegation in the said F. I. R., is that the petitioner has acquired properties as a result of indulging in corrupt practices while working as Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City and Vice-Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board from 1978 to 1982. The enquiry report preceding; the registration of the case would falsify the existence of any nexus between the petitioner and the assets listed in the F.I.R. The material averments stated in different paragraphs of the affidavit of the petitioner are :

(2.) ..........inasmuch as the investigation is not carried speedily denying the constitutional right of the petitioner to a speedy investigation and a speedy trial which forms part of the fundamental " right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the F.I.R. has to be quashed..........The delay has been caused by deliberate and wilful negligence of the prosecuting agency. No delay can be attributed to the petitioner inasmuch as he and his other relations have made available to the prosecuting agency all the available material several years before when there was a demand made by them..........The delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the investigation thereof has led to introduction of coloured versions, thougbtout stories and twisted the actual facts.......... Inordinate delay has caused mental agony to the petitoner, and has resulted in irreparable loss and damage to his reputation.........There has been delay at every stage of the investigation including lodging of the F.I.R..........Protracted investigation and that too ranging for several years do cause mischief and harassment .... ..These lulls have sinister desire............" 2. According to the petitioner the complaint was given by one Gopal Rcddy on 20-9-1981. The matter was pending with A.C.B. upto December 20, 1983 for a period of more than two years. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was registered on 8-3-1984. Therefore the petitioner was forced to file the present petition.

(3.) A detailed counter is filed on behalf of the State denying the allegations made in the affidavit. In para 2 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the case is complicated and time consuming. The Anti-Corruption Bureau made best efforts to complete the investigation as early as possible but the petitioner has been adopting all dilatory tactics to prolong the investigation. He neither disclosed the prices of various items including gold, jewellery etc., enumerated during the search of the premises at Hyderabad on 10-3-1984 nor allowed the Investigating Officer to take measurements of the house to arrive at the standard cost of the house as per the procedure adopted by the Engineering Department nor appeared before the Investigating Officer for being examined under Section 161 Cr. P.C., eventhough notice under Section 160 Cr. P.C., was served on him on 28-3-1987 in person. All other facts regarding the details of assets of the petitioner which are stated in the affidavit by the petitioner were dented by the Department and they have given their own details regarding the said assets.