Battling Corruption is the Crying Need of the Day and the same should be dealt with an Iron Hand [CASE LAW]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Battling corruption is the crying need of the day and the same should be dealt with an iron hand. 

In the instant case FIR had been registered on the allegation of possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income of a public servant. The contents of the source information report are sufficient to make out a case for investigation by the authority. The amount of money involved is exorbitantly high running to several crores of rupees. The matter requires thorough investigation for arriving at a conclusion whether the petitioner was at all involved in the illegal activities as indicated in the source information report. Adopting strict hyper-technical approach is not justified at such an early stage, more so because the preliminary enquiry has yet been conducted. Throttling the investigation to come to its logical conclusion at this stage will not be proper. Stalling the investigation will send out a wrong message to the public and society at large. Public servants may think that they can get a reprieve if their illegal activity remains undetected during their service tenure. They may be emboldened to get involved in corrupt practice and keep the same within wraps temporarily and thereafter pass away the same in the garb of earnings from other sources after retirement/resignation. Battling corruption is the crying need of the day and the same should be dealt with an iron hand. Considering the gravity of the case, the allegations made in the source information report and the huge sum of money involved I am not inclined to quash the FIR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side

Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha

25/01/2019

WP No. 1320 (W) of 2012

Ramesh Saran Rai Vs. Union of India & Ors.

For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. Gupta, Advocate Mr. A. Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. S. Fasih, Advocate. For the CBI :- Mr. Kausik Chanda, ASG Mr. Debasish Basu, Advocate.

Amrita Sinha, J.

A first information report dated 16th September, 2011 registered under section 109 IPC, and sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) is impugned in the instant writ petition. The petitioner prays for quashing the same.

The facts of the case in brief are as follows: 

The petitioner joined the Indian Railway Traffic Service on 11th October, 1992. He held various posts in the railway service. While the petitioner was serving as the Deputy Chief Operations Manager, freight operations information system, Kolkata he tendered his resignation on 23rd July, 2007. Under Indian Railway Establishment Code (volume 1) Rule 302 a clearance from the vigilance was necessary prior to acceptance of resignation of a railway officer. Vide memo dated 2nd August, 2007 the Deputy Chief Personal Officer on behalf of the General Manager, South Eastern Railway intimated the Secretary, Railway Board that no vigilance and special police enquiry case was pending against the petitioner. The General Manager requested the Board for acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 23rd October, 2007. The Railway Board vide a communication dated 18/21 September, 2007 intimated the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata that the President of the Railway Board accepted the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 23rd October, 2007 subject to payment of all outstanding dues, if any.

Even though the Railway Board mentioned that the petitioner’s resignation would be effective from 23rd October, 2007 the General Manager, South Eastern Railway did not release the petitioner from service for undisclosed reasons. In such changed circumstances the petitioner made a representation before the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata praying for withdrawing his resignation on 22nd November, 2007.

Vide a memo dated 28th March, 2008 the Deputy Chief Personal Officer intimated the petitioner that the petitioner’s prayer for withdrawal of resignation was refused and the service of the petitioner stood resigned with immediate effect. The master-servant relationship between the petitioner and the stood severed with effect from 29th March, 2008. Having tendered his resignation from service the petitioner was not entitled to pension.

After resignation from service the petitioner got associated with a company as Director. Under the able guidance of the petitioner the company made huge profits and the petitioner earned good commission from the said company. The petitioner invested the earnings from the company in the form of shares.

The first information report impugned herein was lodged on the basis of an oral information received by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE, ACB, Kolkata on the suspected offence of criminal misconduct (possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income of a public servant) and abetment of the said offence by his wife and brother-in-law during the period October, 1992 to March, 2010.

The contents of the first information report is that information has been received from a reliable source to the effect that the petitioner while posted and functioning as the Deputy Chief Operating Manager (P & P), South Eastern Railway, Kolkata indulged in various corrupt practices and acquired huge disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.9,39,60,279/- by corrupt and illegal means. It was alleged that the petitioner obtained illegal gratification and extended undue favour in favour of some parties at the time of allotment of rakes under the Wagon Investment Scheme in the South Eastern Railway. The petitioner issued NOC in favour of one M/s. Madhu Transport Company which was a logistic company and was not eligible for participation in the Wagon Investment Scheme. The petitioner submitted his resignation in the wake of investigation conducted by the vigilance branch of the South Eastern Railway on receipt of a complaint from one of the applicants.

The FIR further alleged that the petitioner did not own any property till 2005-06 but he disclosed that his wife had purchased a flat in February, 2006 at a cost of Rs.35,00,000/-. The petitioner did not intimate the source of finance for the purchase of the said flat in his immovable property report dated 31st January, 2007. The petitioner became the Managing Director of a company and the Balance Sheet of the said company submitted to the Registrar of Companies for the period ending 31st March, 2010 reflects total assets of the company as Rs.19,48,06,098/-. The petitioner and his wife held huge amount of equity shares of the said company at total face value of Rs.5,39,03,300/-. The petitioner invested his ill-gotten money in various companies wherein his wife and brother-in-law are the directors. He also incurred huge expenses on his personal foreign travel while he was posted and working with the South Eastern Railway during the period 3rd August, 2005 to 8th August, 2005 and 14th May, 2007 to 12th June, 2007. The petitioner parked part of his ill-gotten money abroad during the aforesaid foreign trips. He invested his ill-gotten wealth after retirement in a clever manner to camouflage the same as his purported income from business. It was contended that the petitioner declared a very nominal income while he was in service and drawing salary from the railways but subsequent to the acceptance of his resignation he declared income of Rs.30,00,000/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and a staggering amount of Rs.2,81,57,057/- for the year 2010-11. It was alleged that while the petitioner was in service his wife was a housewife and his brother-in-law was a student and they did not have any independent substantial income.

On the basis of the aforesaid facts the Superintendent of Police registered a Regular Case against the petitioner, his wife and his brother-inlaw under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 IPC and endorsed the case for investigation and filing report.

The primary contention of the petitioner is that the contents of the FIR is ex facie incorrect and untrue in view of the categorical intimation given by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata to the Secretary of the Railway Board on 2nd August, 2007 intimating that there was no vigilance and special police enquiry case pending against the petitioner. Accordingly, the very basis of the complaint that the petitioner had tendered his resignation on the wake of investigation is out and out false. The Ld. Advocate submits that the Railway Board vide its communication dated 18/21 September, 2007 had accepted the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 23rd October, 2007 only after getting clearance that no vigilance enquiry case was pending against the petitioner. Even after acceptance of resignation the respondent authorities illegally and arbitrarily did not release him from service, and the petitioner was ultimately released after issuance of the memo dated 28th March, 2008.

With regards to the issuance of NOC in favour of a logistic company under the Wagon Investment Scheme the petitioner submits that the objective of the Scheme was to encourage public-private partnership in procurement of wagons to meet with the anticipated incremental freight traffic in the coming years. The Wagon Investment Scheme was introduced in the year 2005. Certain incentives were assured to the customers investing in the railway wagons. Wagons under the scheme could be procured by the following: 

i) Individuals as producers.

ii) Corporate entity as producers.

iii) Association or group of companies in a cluster.

iv) Public sector undertakings/government undertakings.

v) Private training house.

vi) Power houses.

It has been submitted that a logistic company was not barred from participating in the Wagon Investment Scheme. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not the allotting authority of the rakes and he was merely the processing officer concerned with processing of the applications submitted before the authority. The applications were recommended by senior officers and thereafter approved by the Railway Board.

As regards the allegation regarding acquisition of flat in the name of his wife it has been submitted that the sale price of the flat in question was Rs.18,00,000/- out of which Rs.12,50,000/- was taken as loan from the bank. His wife was an income tax assesse and the loan amount was to be paid from the earnings of his wife. It was further submitted that assuming that the flat was purchased with the money of the petitioner even then the same could not be termed as ill-gotten money inasmuch as on the date of purchase of the said flat the petitioner had enough money in his bank account earned by him as salary as well as his savings. The Ld. Advocate relies upon the deed of sale of the said flat and submitted that the respondents ought to have verified that the sale price of the flat in question was not Rs.35,00,000/- as mentioned in the first information contents.

He submits that the sum of Rs.19,48,06,098/- which has been treated as an asset of the petitioner was not his personal asset and the same was the asset of the company of which the petitioner was a director. He submits that the asset of the company can never be treated as personal property/asset of a director of the company.

The petitioner relies upon various clauses of the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime Manual 2005) published by the Government of India.

He submits that as per Paragraph 9.6 of the said Manual if the departmental proceeding is not instituted while the Government Servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. In the instant case the department never initiated any proceeding against the petitioner either during or after his resignation from service. As per the said Rule the decision to register a preliminary enquiry against retired Government Servants should be taken at a senior level and after careful examination of all the facts in the light of the provisions mentioned in the CBI Manual. It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that the department where the petitioner was working never lodged any complaint against him any time whatsoever. It is only after leaving the job some persons being extremely jealous of the success of the petitioner in his business lodged the FIR against him and his family members.

It has been submitted that the date on which the FIR had been lodged the petitioner was not a public servant. The learned counsel harps on the point that the petitioner does not qualify the definition of public servant as defined under the Act. The petitioner was not performing any public duty as defined in the said Act. The provisions of Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act are not applicable in case of the petitioner and accordingly no proceeding can be initiated against him relying on the aforesaid provisions.

The FIR suffers from procedural irregularities and the allegations made therein are absurd and improbable and on a meaningful reading do not constitute any offence. The FIR mentions that the source of the information was oral. Lodging of FIR on the basis of oral complaint is not permissible under the provisions of the Act and the Manual. FIR can be lodged upon receiving complaints and on the basis of source information. On receipt of a complaint the same is required to be entered in the Complaint Special Module of CRIMES Module or in the temporary Complaint Register maintained in the branch office. The complaint is assigned a regular complaint number with the approval of the competent authority and then only the said complaint can be taken up for verification. The Superintendent of Police after a preliminary look will decide whether the said complaint merits attention. It is to be seen whether a criminal offence can be made out requiring any action by CBI. Only after analysis of the said complaint if it is revealed that the complaint reveal substantial issue and need further verification the permission of the Competent Authority has to be obtained. It is only the Competent Authority who can order registration of a Regular Case.

In the instant case there is nothing on record to show that approval of the Competent Authority was taken prior to registration of a Regular Case against the petitioner. Moreover, paragraph 8.5 of the Manual mentions that no verification should be taken up except for special reasons where the complaints are anonymous and pseudonymous. In the instant case the name of the informant has not been disclosed in the FIR. As per paragraph 8.5(iii) of the Manual where the allegations relate to service matters and can be better looked into by the departmental authority, verification should not be taken up. As per paragraph 8.5(vii) complaints pertaining to matters/incidents which have occurred in the distant past are not required to be verified.

The petitioner relies upon the following decisions in support of his case:- (i) P. Sirajuddin, vs. State of Madras (1970)1 SCC 595 paragraphs 17 and 19.

(ii) Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2014)2 SCC 1 paragraphs 117, 120.6.

(iii) State of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (2017)8 SCC 45 paragraph 67.

(iv) Mr. Soumen Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors (2014)(3) HCC (CAL) 715 paragraph 7.

The Ld. Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner. The primary contention of the respondents is that specific information was received from a source alleging corruption against the petitioner, his wife and brother-in-law and only after due verification of the said source information the CBI registered the FIR against the petitioner. He submits that on receipt of the complaint the same was verified and as the information revealed cognizable offence the FIR has been lodged as per paragraph 10.1 under chapter 10 of the CBI Manual. No preliminary enquiry was conducted in the present case as the source information was verified and was found adequate enough for registration of FIR. There was no requirement for conducting the preliminary enquiry in the instant case and FIR was registered upon due compliance of the provisions of paragraphs 8.26 to 8.33 of Chapter 8 of the Manual.

He argues that under the Act there is no bar to initiate proceeding after retirement/resignation of the public servant. The CBI manual also does not prescribe any period of limitation to lodge FIR. As soon as the CBI received the information regarding the disproportionate asset and the ill-gotten wealth of the petitioner the FIR was lodged.

The learned additional Solicitor General draws the attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioner acquired such huge amount of money by misusing his power when he was in service, accepting bribes and illegal gratification in lieu of allotment of rakes by the railways. He submits that the petitioner stashed away ill-gotten money while he was in service and very cunningly he did not disclose the same in his accounts. On the wake of an investigation the petitioner along with two other employees of the railways tendered their resignation. The petitioner had nearly twenty years of service career left when he tendered his resignation and on the date of his resignation he had a paltry sum in his bank account, but immediately after his resignation his bank account revealed several crore of money. The petitioner acquired several properties in India and abroad. He floated several companies to stock his ill-gotten money.

The learned Additional Solicitor General harps upon the settled law that in exercise of writ jurisdiction or under the Code of Criminal Procedure an FIR cannot be quashed if the allegation contained in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence. He submits that the content of the FIR has to be accepted on its face value and the Court will not embark upon an enquiry to ascertain as to whether the said allegations are correct or not. It is not within the jurisdiction of the writ Court to act as an Investigating Officer and decide the correctness and the allegations made in the FIR. The writ Court should allow the investigation to proceed and come to its logical conclusion. The CBI should be permitted to enquire into the allegations contained in the FIR and act accordingly.

He submits that as per Section 19(3)(c) of the Act no Court shall stay the proceedings under the Act on any ground. He points out that in the present case the petitioner is enjoying an order of stay since 25th January, 2012. He prays for vacating the stay order immediately and allowing the CBI to proceed with the investigation process.

The learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the following decisions in support of his case:- (i) State of Kerala & Ors. vs. O. C. Kuttan & Ors (1999)2 SCC 651 (paragraph 6).

(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 (paragraphs 102, 103).

(iii) Mosiruddin Munsi vs. Md. Siraj & Anr. (2014)14 SCC 29 (paragraphs 6 to 11) 

(iv) Chirag M. Pathak & Ors. vs. Dollyben Kantilal Patel & Ors (2018)1 SCC 330 (paragraphs 23 to 28).

(v) Satyanarayan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2001)8 SCC 607 (paragraphs 14 to 21).

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record the following emerge: 

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was introduced with a view to eradicate the evil of bribery and corruption amongst public servants. The intention was to make the anti-corruption laws more effective to deal with public servants and those who abet them by way of criminal misconduct. The statements and objects of the Act mention that there are provisions in the Act to enable attachment of ill-gotten wealth obtained through corrupt means, including from transferees of such wealth.

“Public Servant” has been defined in Section (2)(c)(i) of the Act as any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty.

“Public Duty” as defined in Section (2)(b) of the Act means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.

Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows:- A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct-- 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 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows:- Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), -- (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.

Indian Railway Establishment Code (Vol. 1) chapter 3 deals with termination of service. Paragraph 302 of the said Code reads as follows:- 

302. Resignation- (1) In no circumstances shall the resignation of a railway servant whose conduct is under investigation be accepted without the sanction of the authority competent to dismiss him. In cases in which a railway servant has committed an offence for which the penalty is dismissal or removal from service, no suggestion should be made to him to tender his resignation.

The petitioner submitted his resignation from service on 23rd July, 2007 and even though the resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 18th September, 2007 he was not allowed to hand over the charge on that date and his resignation came into effect on and from 28th March, 2008. Prior to acceptance of resignation the vigilance department issued a report that there was no vigilance case pending against him. It appears that even after tendering his resignation the petitioner remained in service for nearly nine months. No allegation of corruption/misconduct was raised against him. All on a sudden after four years of resignation the CBI on the basis of oral information allegedly by a whistle blower initiated the proceedings against the petitioner. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner, his wife and brother in law in the year 2011 i.e. more than four years after the petitioner tendered his resignation.

The source information report which was handed over to the court at the time of hearing discloses facts and incidents which took place when the petitioner was in service.

The general rule of criminal justice is that ‘crime never dies’. Nullum tempus aut locus occurit regi (lapse of time is no bar to the Crown in proceeding against offenders). In offences of this nature prosecution is launched by the Authority and the Court ought not to throw out the prosecution solely on the ground of delay. The object of the criminal law is to punish perpetrators of crime.

There is a sea of difference between amassing wealth by misusing one’s official position, taking bribe or illegal gratification and earning the same by carrying on business following the laws of the land. The astronomical figures reflected in the bank account or the income tax returns of an individual do not necessarily imply that the same has been earned by illegal means and if that be so there are relevant laws to deal with the person concerned.

The date on which the alleged source information was received or the case was registered the petitioner ceased to be a public servant. There is no bar for a public servant to tender his resignation if he has a considerable period of service tenure subsisting prior to his normal date of superannuation. The petitioner joined service in the year 1992 and tendered his resignation in 2007. No allegation of misconduct was raised against him as long as he was a public servant. The bank account details and the income tax returns of the petitioner as long as he was a public servant are in order.

On the date of resignation there was no evidence on record that the petitioner at any time during the period he was in office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income. The vigilance department certified that there was no vigilance proceeding against the petitioner prior to acceptance of his resignation. There was no whisper of initiation of any proceeding either. But the fact of resignation of three employees (petitioner and two others) at the same time raises suspicion.

To bring home the charge under section 13(1)(e) of the Act the first thing that the CBI has to prove is that the petitioner was a public servant and the property possessed by him at any time during the period of his office were disproportionate to his known sources of income. [See M. Krishna Reddy -vs- State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad; AIR 1993 SC 313].

The petitioner after tendering his resignation joined business. The petitioner made good use of his service experience for the development of the business, more so because his business concerned with the railways. Any diligent businessman will make use of his optimum resources to maximize his profit margin. It may happen that the petitioner may have utilised his earlier contacts for growth and betterment of his business. It may also happen that due to the acquaintance of the petitioner with the railway officers the company of the petitioner did good business and earned huge returns. But in this case there is a shocking difference between the income of the petitioner while he was in service and after his resignation. The gap is so large that one cannot resist the conclusion that the earnings may not be by honest means. Possibility of being involved in illegal activities during the service period cannot be ruled out completely. Crimes of such nature are mostly conducted in absolute secrecy and it may take quite some time to unearth the same. The period when the misconduct was committed is relevant and not the time when the same is detected.

The time taken by the petitioner to develop several multi crore businesses after resignation from service is so short that it leads to presumption of misconduct. The source information report reveals that the petitioner holds the position of Director of more than one company, owns several immovable and movable properties, holds huge amount of shares of companies, indulged in foreign travel and also floated more than one private company. The allegation of allotment of rakes, foreign trips and acquisition of property all relates to the period when the petitioner was in service.

Section 13(1)(e) of the Act provides for an opportunity to the Public Servant to disprove the allegation of possessing disproportionate assets as per his known sources of income. It is only when the Public Servant fails to satisfactorily account for the said assets he becomes liable to be proceeded in accordance with the Act. Without affording a chance to explain the possession of the alleged assets the authorities are not entitled to initiate proceeding as per the said provision. The allegations are extremely serious and the respondent authority ought to have conducted a thorough preliminary enquiry to verify the information received from its source and ascertain whether there was any misconduct on the part of the petitioner when he was in service. Lodging the FIR solely relying on the source information without conducting any preliminary enquiry is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the CBI Manual.

In the case of P. Sirajuddin (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “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. 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 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 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 resorted 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.

The same principle was relied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment delivered in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that in the context of offences relating to corruption this Court in P. Sirajuddin expressed the need for a preliminary enquiry before proceeding against public servants. The Supreme Court held that the category of cases in which the preliminary enquiry may be made includes corruption cases as well as cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

In Lalu Prasad Yadav (supra) the Supreme Court held that the CBI ought to follow the CBI manual.

In the case of Soumen Das (supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the investigation conducted by the CBI is to be guided by the executive instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time which is the CBI manual.

In paragraph 102 of the judgment of Bhajanlal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated certain categories of cases wherein extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 103 of the same judgment the Hon’ble Court gave a note of caution that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR and the extraordinary powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. In paragraph 77 of the said judgment the Court expressed their agreement with the views laid down in the case of P. Sirajuddin (supra).

In Mosiruddin Munsi (supra) the Hon’ble Court reiterated the same proposition regarding exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing the FIR.

In paragraphs 14 to 22 of the judgment of Satyanarayan Sharma (supra) relied upon by the respondents it has been held that no stay could be granted in respect of proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act by use of any power on any ground. There can be no stay of trials.

In Chirag M. Pathak (supra) paragraphs 23 to 28 placed by the respondents the Court relied upon the principle that the Court has no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.

In O.C. Kuttan & Ors. (supra) the Court held that “it is too well-settled that the FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the Court and at that stage, it is not possible for the Court to sift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other.” 

In the instant case FIR had been registered on the allegation of possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income of a public servant. The contents of the source information report are sufficient to make out a case for investigation by the authority. The amount of money involved is exorbitantly high running to several crores of rupees. The matter requires thorough investigation for arriving at a conclusion whether the petitioner was at all involved in the illegal activities as indicated in the source information report. Adopting strict hyper-technical approach is not justified at such an early stage, more so because the preliminary enquiry has yet been conducted. Throttling the investigation to come to its logical conclusion at this stage will not be proper. Stalling the investigation will send out a wrong message to the public and society at large. Public servants may think that they can get a reprieve if their illegal activity remains undetected during their service tenure. They may be emboldened to get involved in corrupt practice and keep the same within wraps temporarily and thereafter pass away the same in the garb of earnings from other sources after retirement/resignation. Battling corruption is the crying need of the day and the same should be dealt with an iron hand.

Considering the gravity of the case, the allegations made in the source information report and the huge sum of money involved I am not inclined to quash the FIR.

The CBI is directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry to verify the allegations made in the source information report. The petitioner must be given an opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. The CBI will proceed in the matter only if the allegations made in the complaint disclose prima facie cognizable offence. Till such time the enquiry is complete and the CBI arrives at a decision to proceed further in the matter the impugned FIR shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the CBI in the course of enquiry. Since there is allegation of stacking huge sum of money in India as well as foreign countries the CBI is directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law to ensure that the alleged ill-gotten wealth is not used in money laundering or in any other illegal activity.

As the matter is pending for a considerable period of time, for ends of justice, the CBI is directed to complete the preliminary enquiry preferably within a period of four months but not later than six months from date.

W.P No. 1320 (W) of 2012 is disposed of accordingly.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of usual legal formalities.