Karnataka High Court

Sri H J Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 10.12.2024
Pronounced on : 22.01.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.11679 OF 2023 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI H.J. RAMESH
S/O LATE V. HANUMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL),
CORPORATE OFFICE,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE BY KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POLICE INSPECTOR,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

3 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.B.PATIL, SPL.PP FOR R-1;
SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.PP FOR R-2;
SRI A.CHANDRASHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.3;
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 26/2023 DATED 30/5/2023 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 UNDER
SECTION 13(1) (b) READ WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (ANNX-D) AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE 23RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
3

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 10.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.26 of 2023 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri K. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent No.1, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2

and Sri A. Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3.
4

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is an employee of the 3rd respondent/

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited having joined as

a Junior Engineer in the year 1992. He is promoted to higher

echelons of office from time to time and at the relevant point in

time was holding the post of Director (Technical) at the Bangalore

Electricity Supply Company Limited. When he was so functioning, it

appears that a source report is drawn against the petitioner by the

1st respondent on 18-05-2023 and the source report is indicative of

the fact that the petitioner has amassed wealth disproportionate to

the tune of 172.7%. Based upon the said source report, an order is

passed by the concerned Court permitting registration of crime

which then becomes a crime in Crime No.26 of 2023. Search is

conducted over the properties of the petitioner. Registration of

crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject

petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently

contend that the very grant of permission to register the crime
5

suffers from non-application of mind and is violative of the proviso

to Section 17 of the Act. He would further contend that the source

report that is drawn is completely contrary to known procedure in

law as it takes in its sweep several of the properties that are

acquired by the Government servant prior to his entry into service

and there is no check period indicated in the source report as is

necessary in law. On these two scores, he would seek to place

reliance upon judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench in identical

set of facts to buttress his submission that the proceedings should

be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 1st

respondent Sri B.B. Patil would vehemently refute the submissions

to contend that these are issues which are to be thrashed out in a

full-blown trial, as there is no violation of law as is indicated by the

petitioner and places reliance upon the judgment of the coordinate

Bench. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. In the light of

what is called in question lying in a narrow compass at this

juncture, what is necessary to be noticed is, whether the

proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent/Lokayukta against the

petitioner is in consonance with law or otherwise?

8. The source report that is drawn against the petitioner in its

entirety reads as follows:

"±ÀAQvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ ªÀiÁZïð 2023 gÀªÀgÉV£À
CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è UÀ½¹gÀÄªÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®åUÀ¼ÀÄ:

PÀæ. D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å
¸ÀA.
1 ªÀÄ£É £ÀA 257/J, ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ £ÀA 257, ¦Lr £ÀA 17-113- ` 03,50,00,000.00
257/J, 12£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, 3£ÉÃ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¸ÁuÉUÀÄgÀÄªÀ£À ºÀ½î 1£ÉÃ
ºÀAvÀ, ©EJAJ¯ï ¯ÉÃOmï, §¸ÀªÉÃ±ÀégÀ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-79,
gÀ°è£À ¤ªÉÃ±À£À RjÃ¢ (2021) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É ¤ªÀiÁðt
ªÉZÀÑ (2023)

2 £ÀA 122/J, ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr, ²æÃ «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤®AiÀÄ, 1£ÉÃ ` 01,50,00,000.00
ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, ±ÁgÀzÁ PÁ¯ÉÆÃ¤, ªÁqÀð £ÀA.101, §¸ÀªÉÃ±ÀégÀ
£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 79 gÀ°è£À ¤ªÉÃ±À£À RjÃ¢ (2019) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÉZÀÑ.
7

3 ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA 04, ¨Áå¯Á¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ, vÁªÀgÀPÉgÉ ºÉÆÃ§½, ` 06,52,000.00
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀ°è£À ¤ªÉÃ±À£À RjÃ¢ (2019)

4 zÁªÀtUÉgÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ` 36,50,000.00

5 ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ f¯Éè ¸ÉÆgÀ§ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛPÉÆÃmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ` 15,00,000.00
vÉÆÃlzÀ ªÀÄ£É.

6 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ a£Àß 565 UÁæA ` 27,71,769.00

7 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¨É½î 6 PÉ.f ` 03,96,000.00

8 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ªÀdæzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ` 03,66,715.00
25.589 UÁæA

9 ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ¨É¯É ` 19,55,635.00

10 ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ J¯ï.L.¹ ¥Á°¹UÀ¼À°è ` 02,44,932.00
vÉÆqÀV¹gÀÄªÀ ºÀt CAzÁdÄ.

CAzÁdÄ MlÄÖ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ` 6,15,37,051.00

¦vÁæfðvÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ
PÀæ. D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å
¸ÀA.
1 ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÉÆgÀ§ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛPÉÆÃmÉ ` 48,00,000.00
UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 2 JPÀgÉ PÀÈ¶ ¨sÀÆ«Ä.

RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ

¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.04.2023 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄªÀgÉV£À CAzÁdÄ RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÄÀ :
1. PËlÄA©PÀ ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÁdÄ. ` 80,00,000.00
2. ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÁdÄ. ` 50,00,000.00
3. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ UÀÈºÀ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ, CAzÁdÄ. ` 15,00,000.00
4. ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÉZÀÑ CAzÁdÄ. ` 05,00,000.00
8

5. ¨ÁåAPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸Á® (§rØ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ) ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ` 80,00,000.00
CAzÁdÄ RZÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ ` 02,30,00,000.00

DzÁAiÀÄ
1. ±ÀAQvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À CAzÁdÄ ¤ªÀé¼À ªÉÃvÀ£À DzÁAiÀÄ ` 02,00,00,000.00
2. PÀÈ¶¬ÄAzÀ §A¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ ` 10,00,000.00
3. ±ÀAQvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ««zsÀ ¨ÁåAPïUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¸Á®. ` 01,00,00,000.00
CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ ` 3,10,00,000.00

C¸ÀªÀÄvÉÆÃ®£ÀªÁzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¯ÉPÁÌZÁgÀ

1 MlÄÖ D¹Û ` 06,15,37,051.00
2 MlÄÖ RZÀÄð ` 2,30,00,000.00
3 MlÄÖ D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ RZÀÄð (1+2) ` 08,45,37,051.00
4 MlÄÖ DzÁAiÀÄ ` 03,10,00,000.00
5 CPÀæªÀÄªÁV UÀ½¹zÀ D¹Û (3-4=5) ` 05,35,37,051.00
6 ±ÉÃPÀqÁªÁgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ D¹Û (5/4*100=%) 172.7%

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ C¢üPÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ²æÃ ºÉZï.eÉ gÀªÉÄÃ±ïgÀªÀgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV vÀªÄÀ ä
ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 172.7% CAzÁdÄ C¸ÀªÀÄvÉÆÃ®£ÀªÁzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ
ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÉÃ C®èzÉÃ CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ, ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ
ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÉßÃ»vÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¨ÉÃ£Á«ÄAiÀiÁVAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ
§®ªÁzÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä
PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

What is discernible from the source report is that it does not have a

check period. Check period would mean from what date to what

date. The total salary income of the petitioner is left blank. The

expenditure is taken which is contrary to law and a fancy figure of
9

172.7% is indicated to be the income disproportionate to the known

source. Based upon the said source report permission is granted to

offences. The permission granted is as follows:

"¤ªÉÃzÀ£É:

²æÃ ²æÃPÁAvÀ J¸ï PI gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ¸ÉÆÃ¸ïð ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï
C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀÄÝ EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå
¥ÉÆÃ.C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ C¢üPÁj ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ F ¢ªÀ¸À ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.05.2023 gÀAzÀÄ
ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3.30 UÀAmÉUÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ PS Cr.No.26/2023 PÀ®A 13(1)
(b) of P.C.Act jÃvÁå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÉ."

Whether the aforesaid drawing up of source report in the manner it

is done or the permission granted to register the crime in an order

which bears no application of mind need not detain this Court for

long or delve deep into the matter. A co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN v. ACB1, while

considering an offence that is akin to what is alleged in the case at

hand, has held as follows:

".... .... ....

"8. The whole challenge to the FIR is based on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's
case referred to Supra. While holding that in some of the case
to harass the parties there is chance of filing false FIRs and also
in some cases the reluctant police registers the FIR in

1
W.P.No.43817 of 2018 decided on 21-04-2021
10

cognizable cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain
directions for registration of FIR in para 120 of the judgment.

9. Para 120 of the said judgment included the
following directions:

"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In
cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint,
a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the
first information forthwith and not later than one week. It
must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and
not proceeding further.

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
11

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months'
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining
the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry."

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Reading of para 120.6 of the judgment makes it
clear that in corruption cases, the preliminary enquiry may be
made. The word ''may'' indicates the desirability and not mere
arbitrary discretion. The challenge to the FIR is on the ground
that no such preliminary enquiry was conducted and in the
source report, the inspector put fancy figures only for the
purpose of registering the FIR to harass the petitioner and stall
the promotion.

11. To substantiate such contention, along with
the petition, the copies of the sale deeds, lease deeds or
title deeds relating to some of those properties are
produced. Regarding item No.1 i.e., house No.67 of
Ganganagar, Bengaluru, in the source report, the
valuation is shown as 16 lakhs. But as per the sale deed,
the said property was purchased in the year 2007 for
consideration of Rs.14.5 lakhs/-. The building
constructed on the said site is valued at Rs.1 Crore 50
lakhs/-. But according to the petitioner that is an
inflated figure and he had informed the department about
the construction of the said house.

12. The source report states the value of item
No.2 petrol bump is Rs.40 lakhs, whereas the petitioner
produces the registered lease deed to show that the said
property is not owned by the petitioner but taken on
lease. The property at item No.3 was purchased prior to
check period. The property at item No.6 is shown worth
Rs.40 lakhs in the source report, but in the registered
sale deed, the consideration of the same is shown as
Rs.1.5 lakhs. Similarly, when source report states the
value of item No.7 as Rs.20 lakhs, the sale deed is for
Rs.1.85 lakhs.
12

13. It was also contended that despite the wife of
the petitioner having independent income, her income
was considered as the petitioner's income. Therefore, it
was contended that if a preliminary enquiry was held
calling upon the petitioner to explain the alleged
disproportionate pecuniary resources that could have
cleared the matter. It was also contended that if on
securing the explanation of the petitioner still the
respondent found that there is material to register the
FIR, that could have been done.

14. The aforesaid sale deeds and the other
materials show that value of the properties quoted in the
source report was much higher than the rates quoted in
the title documents. Petitioner has also produced the
certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of his wife
to the effect that from 1988-92 to 2017-18 every year
she has paid income tax. The said document further
indicates that during the said period, she has paid in all
Rs.1,58,85,469/- as income tax.

15. The source report which is part of Annexure-A
submitted before Superintendent of Police, ACB,
Bengaluru, the note of Superintendent of Police, ACB do
not indicate that along with the said report any material
was placed before him to grant permission to register the
FIR and investigate the matter. In the order of
Superintendent Police absolutely, there is no reference
to submission of any documents along with the source
report. In one stroke the Superintendent of Police says
that he is convinced that it is a fit case to register the FIR
and investigate the case. He does not even say that any
preliminary enquiry was conducted prior to placing
source report before him. Therefore, there is clear
violation of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lalitha Kumari's case in registering the FIR.

16. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Charansingh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in
Crl.A.No.363/2021 dated 24.03.2021 relied upon by the
learned Spl. Public Prosecutor himself, in para 12 it was
held that before registering the FIR a preliminary enquiry
shall be conducted either confidential or open enquiry.
13

17. It was further held that during the enquiry at
pre-registration of FIR stage, if the accused satisfies
producing the materials relating to his known sources of
income and the assets, no FIR will be lodged. It was held
that if accused is not able to clarify his assets vis-à-vis,
known sources of income, then the FIR will be lodged and
he will be subjected to investigation. It was held that
such an enquiry would be to safeguard the interest of the
accused also which may avoid further harassment to him.

18. The judgment in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel
Vs. State of Gujarat and Others in 2018 3 SCC 104 was
relied upon by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor to contend
that, it is sufficient if FIR discloses prima facie a
cognizable offence and the High Court cannot act like an
Investigating Agency nor can exercise powers like an
Appellate Court. Absolutely, there is no dispute with
regard to the said proposition. However, this Court also
has to examine whether there was compliance of the
direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita
Kumari's case. As already pointed out, there is no such
compliance in the case on hand.

19. Only for the limited purpose of finding out
whether the source report was based on any material, the
title deeds produced by the petitioner with regard to
some of the properties mentioned above were compared
and examined. The respondent cannot dispute the
consideration mentioned in those registered sale deeds at
this length of time. They prima facie show that without
calling upon the petitioner to show the value of those
properties or without any concrete basis in the source
report atleast for some of the items, the fancy value are
quoted.
20. Under such circumstance, the judgment in
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel's case referred to supra no
where advances the case of the respondent. Since the
source report, order to register the FIR and the
registration of the FIR were contrary to the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari's case and
Charansingh's case, they amount to abuse of the process
of the Court.
14

21. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The
impugned FIR at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. This
order does not preclude the respondent to conduct the
preliminary enquiry as contemplated in Lalita Kumari's
and Charansingh's case and if any material is found to
proceed against the petitioner."
(Emphasis supplied)

9. This Court, in the case of K.R. KUMAR NAIK V. STATE2, has

held as follows:

".... .... ....
8. The house of the petitioner was searched on the basis
of FIR registered on 16-03-2022 after drawing up a source
information report which also was prepared on 16-03-2022.
Therefore, the dates assume significance. On 15-03-2022 in
connection with Crime No. 23 of 2022 of some other person, the
house of a person connected with the said crime was searched
and articles belonging to the petitioner who was the neighbour
of the said flat were found and immediately thereafter on the
very same day a source information report was prepared and
FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section
13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner. Thus, it
becomes necessary to notice Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the
Act. They read as follows:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct,-
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or
otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to
him or any property under his control as a public servant or
allows any other person so to do; or

2
2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1362
15

(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly
during the period of his office.
Explanation 1.-A person shall be presumed to
have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any
person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any
time during the period of his office, been in possession
of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to
his known sources of income which the public servant
cannot satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2.-The expression "known sources of
income" means income received from any lawful sources.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall be not less than four years but which may extend
to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."

9. Section 13(1) deals with a public servant who is said to
have committed an offence of criminal misconduct. Criminal
misconduct would be, if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly
during the period of his office. Explanation offered to Section
13(1)(b) is that the person is presumed to have intentionally
enriched himself illicitly, 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 of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of income, which the
public servant cannot satisfactorily account for. Known source of
income is also explained.
10. Therefore, to charge a public servant with Section
13(1) which deals with criminal misconduct, and being in
possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of
income, there must be a basis. The basis emanates from a
report. The report in corruption parlance is a source information
report. A source information report cannot be generated at the
drop of the hat. It is a responsible work of a responsible officer
i.e., Inspector of Police, under the guidance and supervision of a
superior police officer, a Deputy Superintendent of Police and it
has to be drawn up after calculating entire period of service of a
public servant and arrive at a conclusion albeit, prima facie, that
16

he has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of
income.
11. These are the broad contours of generation of a
source information report which can become criminal
misconduct as obtaining under Section 13(1) of the Act which
would become punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. An
allegation of criminal misconduct on a public servant is serious
one. Therefore, it cannot be a casual or a frolicsome act of the
ACB in preparing the source information report at the drop of
the hat. The importance of the source report being thus, it is
germane to notice the source information report generated in
the case at hand, which on the face of it, depicts it being
prepared in a hottest haste. The source information report
against petitioner reads as follows:--
"SOURCE INFORMATION REPORT (S.I.R)

1. Name of the AGO Kumar Naik, Age-37Yrs
aprox(22.08.1984)

2. Present designation (dept) and Executive Engineer, BESCOM, BBMP,
Group Bengaluru. "Group - A"

3. Place of working Executive Engineer, BESCOM, BBMP,
Bengaluru

4. Joined in

5. Joined as (designation and group Joined As Assistant Engineer, BESCOM.

6. Caste SC-Lambani

7. Native Place

8. Family tree (Parents, Siblings, wife, Father : Rajendra Naik Wife : Smt.
children, close relatives of Wife) Ashalatha,

9. Total years of Service Not yet ascertained

10. Check Period From the date of joining service to till
date.

11. Whether wife is working?(Y/N) No

12. Wife's designation, Dept, Group, No
Salary particulars, A.P.R. etc.,
17

AGO PROPERTY DETAILS AS PER RECORDS FOUND DURING SEARCH
CONDUCTED IN PREMISES OF MUNAVAR PASHA

13. Homes/Constructed buildings

Description of Total No. of Name of Place of the Total value of
Property Homes/Construc the property property
ted Buildings property
owner

#2103, Karle 3- bed room Flat Kumar Kempapura, Rs.
Zenith, Naik Bangalore 2,00,00,000/-
Kempapura (approx)
Bangalore

#43, 301, MU This address has been figured in one of the document
Nest, 5th Main, seized during the searches conducted at the residence of
near Munavar Pasha, Kale Zenith, Kempapura, Bangalore which
Bhoopasandra needs to be further verified and ascertained the ownership.
Bus Stop, Sanjay The address was found in the KIADB allotment letter issued
nagar Post, to Smt. Ashalatha B w/o Kumar Naik.
Bangalore North,
Bengaluru-94.

#363 This address has been figured in one of the document
Brindavana, seized during the searches conducted at the residence of
4th Main road, Munavar Pasha, Karle Zenith, Kempapura, Bangalore which
Kengeri Satellite needs to be further verified and ascertained the ownership.
Town, Kengeri The address was found in the Aadhar card of the Kumar
Gollahalli, Naik.
Bangalore

Muralidhar This address has been figured in one of the document
Banjara seized during the searches conducted at the residence of
(29.01.1993) C/o Munvar Pasha, Karle Zenith, Kempapura, Bangalore which
Anil Kumar B., needs to be further verified and ascertained the ownership.
He is suspected to be the brother of Kumar Naik and
proprietor Ms. Maltesh Industries having PAN No.
CWSPM0215M.

#285, Bhagya
Nidhi, Railway
mens layout,
2nd Phase, Ullal
Upanagar, ullalu
Bangalore,
Karnataka - 56.
18

Total

14 KIADB - sites

Total No. of SQ Name of Place of the Total value of
Fts the property property
property
owner

Ashalatha w/o 4103 Sq meters. - Plot Nos 3A5, Rs.
Kumar Naik, 3A6, of 1,33,00,000/-
2103, Karle Hardware
Zenith, Kempapu Sector, Hitech
ra, Bangalore Defence &
Aerospace Park,
Industrial Area,
Bengaluru
Urban Dist.

- - - - -

15 Vehicles and other movable properties

At time of
search at the
house of Sri.
Munavar Pasha,
Gold and silver
articles belongs
to the Kumar
Naik were
found and the
details are as
follows.

Gold Silver 1290 Gms of Gold and Rs. 64,00,00 0- The Gold and
Ornaments 9,226 Gms of Silver 00 Silver were
measured and
valued by
registered
Valuer namely
Suresh.

Silk Sarees 9 Nos. Rs. 2,00,000-00
(Approximate
ly)

Cash - Rs. 3,06,000-00
19

Yet to be ascertained

Total - - -

16 Official income

AGO's Salary (from date of joining to till
date)

AGO's wife Salary (from date of joining to till
date)

AGO's Son/Daughter Salary/Income (If not
married)

Ancestral property Income

Land Income

Income from site/others

Loan Sanctioned (Income)

Filled the loan amount (Expenditure) Yet to be ascertained

17 D.A. Calculation Total Value of Property

Total Property 4,00,00,000.00 (aprox)

Total Expenditure

Total Property + Total Expenditure

Total Income

Disproportionate Income

Percentage of disproportionate Income

Sd/-
(Basavaraj Magadum)
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore."
(Emphasis added)
20

12. In the source information report, the column total
years of service of the petitioner reads 'not yet ascertained'.
Therefore, the ACB did not even know how many years of
service a public servant has put in. The check period which is
the most important ingredient of a source information report is
left vague by stating 'from the date of joining service to till
date'. Wife's designation, salary particulars, Annual Property
Returns ('APR') etc. are not even looked into. APR of the
petitioner is also not even looked into. What is seen is property
details as per the records found during the search in connection
with Crime No. 23 of 2022 of some other public servant. The
official income at column No. 16 that is petitioner's salary and
petitioner's wife's salary reads as 'yet to be ascertained'. At
column No. 17 value of total property is mentioned and
percentage of disproportionate income is zero as it is left
completely blank. It is this source information report that
becomes a FIR under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act.
Section 13(1)(b) deals with criminal misconduct against a public
servant. The basis being the source information report, it is trite
that the report assumes a great significance while imputing
allegations of criminal misconduct.

13. The FIR is registered on 16-03-2022 and source
information report is also drawn on 16-03-2022 which is
ostensibly done at a jiffy. The Anti-Corruption Bureau which
performs a very significant role in checking corruption amongst
public servants cannot indulge itself in such casual act of
drawing up the source information report on the instant,
registering the FIR and conducting the search. The entire
narration of allegation which would become criminal misconduct
against the petitioner is on the basis of the records found in
somebody else's house in connection with someone else's crime.
Such a source information report against the petitioner is no
report in the eye of law.

14. The law also contemplates conduct of a preliminary
inquiry in cases of corruption alleged as against public servants.
The Apex Court right from the judgment in the case of P.
SIRAJUDDIN v. STATE OF MADRAS1 has clearly held that before
a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with
acts of dishonesty, some suitable preliminary inquiry into the
21

allegations by a responsible officer should be made. It could be
in the nature of source information report or otherwise. The
observations of the Apex Court are as follows:
"17. In our view the procedure adopted against the
appellant before the laying of the first information report
though not in terms forbidden by law, was so
unprecedented and outrageous as to shock one's sense of
justice and fairplay. No doubt when allegations about
dishonesty of a person of the appellant's rank were brought
to the notice of the Chief Minister it was his duty to direct as
enquiry into the matter. The Chief Minister in our view
pursued the right course. The High Court was not impressed
by the allegation of the appellant that the Chief Minister was
moved to take an initiative at the instance of person who
was going to benefit by the retirement of the appellant and
who was said to be a relation of the Chief Minister. The High
Court rightly held that the relationship between the said
person and the Chief Minister, if any, was so distant that it
could not possibly have influenced him and we are of the
same view. Before a public servant, whatever be his
status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty
which amount to serious mis-demeanour 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 of 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
22

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 restored 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. The judgment in the case of P. SIRAJUDDIN was
rendered 2 score and 10 years ago. The concept of conduct of
preliminary inquiry has been reiterated by Five Judge Bench of
the Apex Court, in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF
U.P.2 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
Conclusion/Directions
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry,
a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
23

where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the
first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It
must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and
not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action
must be taken against erring officers who do not register
the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable
offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to
verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received
but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months'
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry."

16. After 51 years of rendering the judgment in the case
of P. SIRAJUDDIN (supra) the Apex Court in the case
of CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA3 while following
both the judgments i.e., Five Judge Bench in LALITA
KUMARI and in P. SIRAJUDDIN (supra) has held as follows:
24

"12. As per the decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari
[Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 524], the categories of cases in which preliminary
enquiry may be made are as under: (Lalita Kumari case
[Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 524], SCC p. 61, para 120)
"120.6. ... (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months'
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry."
13. In para 120, this Court concluded and issued
directions as under: (Lalita Kumari case [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524], SCC p. 61)
"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry,
a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the
first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It
must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and
not proceeding further.
25

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action
must be taken against erring officers who do not register
the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable
offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to
verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received
but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months'
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of
the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry
should be made time-bound and in any case it should not
exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it
must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily
Diary is the record of all information received in a police
station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable
offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading
to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously
reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a
preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned
above."
26

14. In the context of offences relating to corruption,
in para 117 in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], this Court
also took note of the decision of this Court in P.
Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [P. Sirajuddin v. State of
Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] in which
case this Court expressed the need for a preliminary
enquiry before proceeding against public servants.
15. While expressing the need for a preliminary
enquiry before proceeding against public servants who are
charged with the allegation of corruption, it is observed in P.
Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC
595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] that : (SCC p. 601, para 17)
"before a public servant, whatever be his status, is
publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to
serious misdemeanour or misconduct of indulging into
corrupt practice 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 who is occupying 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.
It is further observed that: (P. Sirajuddin case [P.
Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970
SCC (Cri) 240], SCC p. 601, para 17)
"when such an enquiry is to be held for the purpose
of finding out whether criminal proceedings are to be
initiated and the scope thereof must be limited to the
examination of persons who have knowledge of the affairs
of the person against whom the allegations are made and
documents bearing on the same to find out whether there is
a prima facie evidence of guilt of the officer, thereafter, the
ordinary law of the land must take its course and further
enquiry be proceeded with in terms of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by lodging a first information report."
27

15.1. Thus, an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held
to be permissible and not only permissible but
desirable, more particularly in cases where the
allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice
acquiring the assets/properties disproportionate to
his known sources of income. After the
enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR
stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the
material collected during such enquiry, it is found
that the complaint is vexatious and/or there is no
substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall not be
lodged. However, if the material discloses prima facie
a commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be
lodged and the criminal proceedings will be put in
motion and the further investigation will be carried
out in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be
permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR
would be registered. Therefore, such a preliminary
enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged
accused also against whom the complaint is made.

commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must
be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down by this
Court in a catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging
the first information report, the police officer need not be
satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been
committed, considering the observations made by this Court
in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1
SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the
observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or
conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra
State Anti-Corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau
Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the
police officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction
and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an
enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage.
... ... ... ....
18.13. After completing the enquiry, a final
report along with the papers of the enquiry is
required to be sent to the Director General, ACB.
Even, while submitting the final report and the papers
of the enquiry, which are the points to be considered
and/or borne in mind are stated in Para 16 of the
Manual. Only thereafter and if it is found that a
cognizable offence is made out and there is substance
in the allegations, an FIR would be lodged and further
investigation will be carried out after following the
procedure as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, a foolproof safeguard and procedure is
provided before lodging an FIR/complaint before the
Court against the public servant, who is facing the
allegations of corrupt practice. However, as observed
hereinabove, such an enquiry would be conducted to
ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or
not. As observed hereinabove, even at the stage of
registering the first information report, the police
officer is not required to be satisfied or convinced
that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is
enough if the information discloses the commission of
29

a cognizable offence as the information only sets in
motion the investigative machinery, with a view to
collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take
action in accordance with law. Therefore, as such,
holding such an enquiry, may be discrete/open
enquiry, at pre-registration of FIR stage in the case of
allegation of corrupt practice of accumulating assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income,
cannot be said to be per se illegal.

19. However, the next question posed for the
consideration of this Court is, whether to what extent such
an enquiry is permissible and what would be the scope and
ambit of such an enquiry. By the impugned notice,
impugned before the High Court, and during the course of
the "open enquiry", the appellant has been called upon to
give his statement and he has been called upon to carry
along with the information on the points, which are referred
to hereinabove for the purpose of recording his statement.
The information sought on the aforesaid points is having a
direct connection with the allegations made against the
appellant, namely, accumulating assets disproportionate to
his known sources of income. However, such a notice, while
conducting the "open enquiry", shall be restricted to
facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding his assets and
known sources of income. The same cannot be said to be a
fishing or roving enquiry. Such a statement cannot be said
to be a statement under Section 160 and/or the statement
to be recorded during the course of investigation as per the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a statement even cannot
be used against the appellant during the course of trial.
Statement of the appellant and the information so received
during the course of discrete enquiry shall be only for the
purpose to satisfy and find out whether an offence under
Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 is disclosed. Such a
statement cannot be said to be confessional in character,
and as and when and/or if such a statement is considered to
be confessional, in that case only, it can be said to be a
statement which is self-incriminatory, which can be said to
be impermissible in law.
30

20. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in
the present case as such the appellant has produced the
relevant documents of some of the properties owned by him
and the appellant has joined the "open enquiry". It also
appears from the counter filed on behalf of the Anti-
Corruption Bureau that on the basis of the information given
by the appellant, letters have been issued to various
authorities/banks, seeking further and better particulars.
Partial statement of the appellant has already been
recorded. However, as observed hereinabove, such a
statement/enquiry would be restricted only to ascertain
whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. Such a
statement cannot be said to be a confessional statement.
After having been satisfied and after conclusion of the
enquiry and on the basis of the material collected, if it is
found that there is substance in the allegations against the
appellant and it discloses a cognizable offence, FIR will be
lodged and the investigating agency has to collect the
evidence/further evidence to substantiate the
allegations/charge of accumulating the assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income. However,
if during the enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage, if the
appellant satisfies on production of the materials produced
relating to his known sources of income and the assets, in
that case, no FIR will be lodged and if he is not able to
clarify his assets, vis-à-vis, known sources of income, then
the FIR will be lodged and he will be subjected to
trial. Therefore, as such, such an enquiry would be to
safeguard his interest also which may avoid further
harassment to him."
(Emphasis supplied)

17. On the bedrock of the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in the cases of P. SIRAJUDDIN, LALITA
KUMARI and CHARANSINGH, if the case at hand is considered,
what would unmistakably emerge is that the entire proceedings
instituted by the ACB against the petitioner cannot but be
termed to be a mockery of the procedure. The very perusal of
the source information report which had to contain all the
particulars would indicate that it does not contain any
particulars. It was no source information report in the eye of
31

law. In cases where a public servant is charged with offences
punishable under Section 13 of the Act to become punishable
under Section 13(2) of the Act, as they deal with amassing
wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income, every
ingredient that is required to be assessed in the source report
must be present. The check period, the period of service of the
accused Government servant and the sources of income should
be assessed albeit, by a preliminary inquiry to arrive at a prima
facie conclusion that the officer is liable to be proceeded against
for criminal misconduct.

18. The afore-quoted incident of discovery of certain
material allegedly belonging to the petitioner could at best have
triggered the conduct of a preliminary enquiry and could not
become the basis for registration of an FIR, as has been done.
There is no preliminary inquiry worth the name that is even
conducted by the ACB in the case of the petitioner as every act
of the ACB i.e., preparation of the source information report,
registration of FIR and conduct of search on the house of the
petitioner have all happened on one single day - 24 hours. A
source information report, according to the norm or procedure
what is followed by the ACB, requires an Inspector of Police to
conduct such enquiry and collect those documents which would
become a part of a source information report and such source
information report is to be placed before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police who would then give his nod for
registration of the crime. These procedures and the time
required for these procedures are thrown to the winds. A
perusal at the original records that were placed before the Court
would also indicate no collection of any material, in the nature
of preliminary inquiry or a source information report taking
place prior to registration of the FIR. All that the file contains is
the search conducted in Crime No. 23 of 2022 concerning some
other officer and that material being used against the petitioner
to register the crime in Crime No. 24 of 2022. Every record is
sought to be built up subsequent to the said date i.e., the date
of registration of the crime against the petitioner.
32

10. Further, this Court in the case of BALAKRISHNA H. N.

V. STATE3, has held as follows:

".... ..... .....

8. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as it is challenging
the FIR the petitioner is before this Court. The ground urged by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that if a
preliminary enquiry had been conducted as is required in law, it
would clearly demonstrate that the properties on which the
prosecution wants to place reliance upon to arrive at a fancy
figure of 96.66% as disproportionate asset would have been
obviated. Therefore, it is germane to notice the very source
report that is registered against the petitioner which reads as
follows:
".... .... ....

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ (J¸ï.f.N.) PËlÄA©PÀ »£Éß¯É:

²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀ: ºÁ¸À£À f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ ,
±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉÆ¼À ºÉÆÃ§½ ºÁ®ÄªÀÄwÛUÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ
gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £ÀA.256, D±Á ¤®AiÀÄ, 16£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, 02£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ E°è
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ JA§ÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¨sÀªÀå²æÃgÀªÀgÄÀ
UÀÈ»tÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 17 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï
¸À¨ï -E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï DV ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, 2016 gÀ°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÁV ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ºÉÆA¢
ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÁV DV PÀvÀðªÀå
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ «ªÀgÀ PÀ¼ÀPÀAqÀAwgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

1. ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï
ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
2. ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 2005
3. FV£À ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀbÉÃj ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ
¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ

3
W.P.No.15886 of 2022 decided on 03-01-2023
33

4. ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À ºÁ®ÄªÀÄwÛUÀnÖ, ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉÆ¼À ºÉÆÃ§½,
ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè.

5. ºÁ° ªÁ¸À ¸ÀÜ¼À £ÀA.256, D±Á ¤®AiÀÄ, 16£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, 02£ÉÃ
ºÀAvÀ, «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ

²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉ«UÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ
gÁdåzÀ ««zsÀ PÀqÉ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¹ÜgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ZÀgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉ«UÉ UÀt¤ÃAiÀÄªÁV
ZÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹ÜgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Cfð¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢zÉ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ
EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è Cfð¹gÀÄªÀ ¹ÜgÀ
D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ

PÀæ.¸ÀA. ¹ÜgÁ¹ÛAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¹ÛAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ
EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀ ªÀiË®å
¢£ÁAPÀ
1 ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5 UÀÄAmÉ SÁ° - - 15,00,000-00
eÁUÀ, ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ÀégÀ
§qÁªÀuÉ, £ÀªÉÇÃzÀAiÀÄ
±Á¯É »A¨sÁUÀ,
ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt, ºÁ¸À£À
f¯Éè
2 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.114/2 gÀ°è 5 ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æ - 40,00,000-00
UÀÄAmÉ SÁ° eÁUÀ, ±ÉlÖºÀ½î (¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ
UÁæªÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½, ¸ÀPÁðj
ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ
ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè ¥Àwß)
3 ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.114/5 gÀ°è 5 ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æ - 25,00,000-00
UÀÄAmÉ SÁ° eÁUÀ, ±ÉlÖºÀ½î (¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ
UÁæªÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½, ¸ÀPÁðj
ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ
ºÁ¸À£ f¯ÉèÀ ¥Àwß)
4 10 ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½gÀÄªÀ PÀlÖqÀ, ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æ - w½AiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ
PÀAmÁæPÀÖgï PÀè¨ï »A¨sÁUÀ, (¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ
¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï ¨ÉÃPÀj »A¨sÁUÀ, ¸ÀPÁðj
ZÀ¤ßUÀgÁAiÀÄ §qÁªÀuÉ, C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ
ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt, ºÁ¸À£À ¥Àwß)
f¯Éè
34

MlÄÖ 80,00,000-00

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è Cfð¹gÀÄªÀ ZÀgÀ
D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ

PÀæ.¸ÀA. ZÀgÁ¹ÛAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¹ÛAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ
EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀ ªÀiË®å
¢£ÁAPÀ
1. £Á®ÄÌ ZÀPÀæzÀ ªÁºÀ£À 01 ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ - 13,00,000-00
2. J¸ï.f.N. gÀªÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆÃ¸ïð 5,00,000-00
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ a£ÀßzÀ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï. ªÀiÁ»w
D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ
¨É½îAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ
CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å
3. J¸ï.f.N. gÀªÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ¨sÀªÀå²æÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆÃ¸ïð 5,00,000-00
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï. ªÀiÁ»w
¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ
E¯ÉQÖçPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¯ÉPÁÖç¤Pï ªÀgÉUÉ
ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å
MlÄÖ 23,00,000-00

CfðvÀ ¹ÜgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À MlÄÖ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 80,00,000-00
CfðvÀ ZÀgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å MlÄÖ gÀÆ. 23,00,000-00
CfðvÀ ¹ÜgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ZÀgÁ¹ÛUÀ¼À MlÄÖ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1,03,00,000-00

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è£À CAzÁdÄ
RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ:

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀV¹gÀÄªÀ
RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ «ªÀgÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EzÉ.

1. ¹ÜgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À RjÃ¢ PÁ®zÀ°è ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀÄªÀ 4,00,000-00
£ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ ªÉZÀÑ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉjUÉ-CAzÁdÄ
2. ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀzÀ RZÀÄð-CAzÁdÄ 2,00,000-00
3. PËAlÄ©PÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÉZÀÑ CAzÁdÄ 8,00,000-00
4. ªÁºÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÉZÀÑ, zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ, ±ÀÄ¨sÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁgÁA¨sÀ EvÁå¢ 1,00,000-00
CAzÁdÄ
¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ RZÀÄð gÀÆ. 15,00,000-00

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÀÄlÄA§zÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
¸ÀªÀÄävÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ §AzÀÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ:
35

PÀæ.¸ÀA. DzÁAiÀÄzÀ «ªÀgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À°è
1 J¸ï.f.N.gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ 60,00,000-00
¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ §®è ªÀÄÆ®zÀ UÉÆvÁÛzÀ DzÁAiÀÄ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À°è 60,00,000-00

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è vÀ£Àß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£Àß
PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è Cfð¹gÀÄªÀ D¹Û, DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å

:: WÉÆÃµÁégÉ ::

1 CfðvÀ ¹ÜgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀgÀ D¹Û CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 1,03,00,000-00
2 vÉÆqÀV¹gÀÄªÀ RZÀÄð CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 15,00,000-00
D¹Û+RZÀÄð=MlÄÖ ªÀiË®å 1,18,00,000-00
§®è ªÀÄÆ®zÀ CAzÁdÄ DzÁAiÀÄ 60,00,000-00
UÀ½¹gÀÄªÀ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj CPÀæªÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ ªÀiË®å 58,00,000-00
±ÉÃPÀqÁªÁgÀÄ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¥ÀæªÀiÁt 96.66%

EzÀ®èzÉÃ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÄÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ D¹Û¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À Cdð£É eÉÆvÉUÉ
vÀªÀÄä PËlÄA©PÀ ªÉZÀÑPÁÌV, ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀPÁÌV vÀªÀÄä ¨sÉÆÃUÀfÃªÀ£ÀPÁÌV, ±ÀÄ¨sÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁgÀA¨sÀUÀ½UÁV,
¥ÀæªÁ¸ÀPÁÌV ºÁUÀÆ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÀÄðUÀ½UÁV AiÀÄxÉÃZÀÑªÁV ºÀt ªÀåAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ gÀºÀ¸Àå
PÁAiÀÄðZÁgÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ²æÃ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ºÉZï.J£ï. gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è
ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀAvÉ DzÁAiÀÄ, RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D¹Û¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÉÆwÛgÀÄªÀ DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½UÉ
C¸ÀªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ DyðPÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ
PÀAqÀÄ§A¢zÉ. ¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.58,00,000-00 (LªÀvÉÛAlÄ ®PÀë
gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) PÀÆÌ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀjAiÀiÁV ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 96.66% gÀµÀÄÖ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj D¹Û ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ FªÀgÉV£À gÀºÀ¸Àå
«ZÁgÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ§A¢zÀÄÝ, ªÀÄvÀÛµÀÄÖ £ÉÊd ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ
CvÀåªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ D¹Û
UÀ½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV
¤ªÉÃ¢¹PÉÆArzÉ."

In terms of the source report what could be unmistakably
gathered is that there is no check period indicated. The
properties of the wife are taken at Rs.80/- lakhs and the income
of the petitioner is taken at Rs.23/- lakhs totaling to Rs.1.03
crores to be the asset of the petitioner. The petitioner has
appended to the petition several documents with regard to
possession of properties of his wife.

9. The petitioner joined service on 01-09-2005, gets
married to one Smt. C. Bhavya, daughter of one
36

C.N.Chandregowda on 10-09-2007. It is claimed that the
father-in-law of the petitioner is a landlord, contractor and
businessman and had acquired certain properties long before
marriage of his daughter with the petitioner. Those properties
which were acquired prior to the marriage were gifted in favour
of the wife of the petitioner. Likewise certain properties which
were acquired by the father-in-law of the petitioner way back in
the year 2000 long before the petitioner joined service of the
State Government are gifted to the petitioner in the year 2020.
The source report takes those properties to be the properties
belonging to the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner
depicting disproportionate asset to be 96.66%. The source
report is drawn on 14-03-2022 and is placed before the
competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police who
endorses that a crime be registered against the petitioner for
offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the
Act. The gap between submission of source report before the
competent authority and a direction being issued for registration
of the crime is less than 24 hours. This would not vitiate the
proceedings though contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner to the contrary.

10. The Apex Court has clearly held that in cases where
the allegation is disproportionate assets to the known sources of
income, prior to registration of crime or drawing up of source
report, a preliminary enquiry is not only desirable but
necessary, as it would avoid arbitrariness or arriving at fancy
figure and hauling a Government servant into the web of crime
which would lead to dire consequences. A co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN v. ACB4
(supra) while considering an offence that is akin to what is
alleged in the case at hand, has held as follows:

".... .... ....

"8. The whole challenge to the FIR is based on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha
Kumari's case referred to Supra. While holding that in
some of the case to harass the parties there is chance of
filing false FIRs and also in some cases the reluctant police
registers the FIR in cognizable cases, the Hon'ble Supreme

4
W.P.No.43817 of 2018 decided on 21-04-2021
37

Court laid down certain directions for registration of FIR in
para 120 of the judgment.

9. Para 120 of the said judgment included the
following directions:

"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity
for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry
ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry
of such closure must be supplied to the first
information forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to
verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain
whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches in initiating criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3
months' delay in reporting the matter
without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of
all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry."

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Reading of para 120.6 of the judgment makes it
clear that in corruption cases, the preliminary enquiry may be
made. The word ''may'' indicates the desirability and not mere
arbitrary discretion. The challenge to the FIR is on the ground that
no such preliminary enquiry was conducted and in the source
report, the inspector put fancy figures only for the purpose of
registering the FIR to harass the petitioner and stall the promotion.

11. To substantiate such contention, along with the
petition, the copies of the sale deeds, lease deeds or title
deeds relating to some of those properties are produced.
Regarding item No.1 i.e., house No.67 of Ganganagar,
Bengaluru, in the source report, the valuation is shown as
16 lakhs. But as per the sale deed, the said property was
purchased in the year 2007 for consideration of Rs.14.5
lakhs/-. The building constructed on the said site is valued
at Rs.1 Crore 50 lakhs/-. But according to the petitioner
that is an inflated figure and he had informed the
department about the construction of the said house.

12. The source report states the value of item No.2
petrol bump is Rs.40 lakhs, whereas the petitioner produces
the registered lease deed to show that the said property is
not owned by the petitioner but taken on lease. The
property at item No.3 was purchased prior to check period.
The property at item No.6 is shown worth Rs.40 lakhs in the
source report, but in the registered sale deed, the
consideration of the same is shown as Rs.1.5 lakhs.
Similarly, when source report states the value of item No.7
as Rs.20 lakhs, the sale deed is for Rs.1.85 lakhs.
39

13. It was also contended that despite the wife of
the petitioner having independent income, her income was
considered as the petitioner's income. Therefore, it was
contended that if a preliminary enquiry was held calling
upon the petitioner to explain the alleged disproportionate
pecuniary resources that could have cleared the matter. It
was also contended that if on securing the explanation of
the petitioner still the respondent found that there is
material to register the FIR, that could have been done.

14. The aforesaid sale deeds and the other
materials show that value of the properties quoted in the
source report was much higher than the rates quoted in the
title documents. Petitioner has also produced the certificate
issued by the Chartered Accountant of his wife to the effect
that from 1988-92 to 2017-18 every year she has paid
income tax. The said document further indicates that during
the said period, she has paid in all Rs.1,58,85,469/- as
income tax.

15. The source report which is part of Annexure-A
submitted before Superintendent of Police, ACB, Bengaluru,
the note of Superintendent of Police, ACB do not indicate
that along with the said report any material was placed
before him to grant permission to register the FIR and
investigate the matter. In the order of Superintendent
Police absolutely, there is no reference to submission of any
documents along with the source report. In one stroke the
Superintendent of Police says that he is convinced that it is
a fit case to register the FIR and investigate the case. He
does not even say that any preliminary enquiry was
conducted prior to placing source report before him.
Therefore, there is clear violation of the direction issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case in
registering the FIR.

17. It was further held that during the enquiry at
pre-registration of FIR stage, if the accused satisfies
producing the materials relating to his known sources of
40

income and the assets, no FIR will be lodged. It was held
that if accused is not able to clarify his assets vis-à-vis,
known sources of income, then the FIR will be lodged and
he will be subjected to investigation. It was held that such
an enquiry would be to safeguard the interest of the
accused also which may avoid further harassment to him.

18. The judgment in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel
Vs. State of Gujarat and Others in 2018 3 SCC 104 was
relied upon by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor to contend
that, it is sufficient if FIR discloses prima facie a cognizable
offence and the High Court cannot act like an Investigating
Agency nor can exercise powers like an Appellate Court.
Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the said
proposition. However, this Court also has to examine
whether there was compliance of the direction issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari's case. As already
pointed out, there is no such compliance in the case on
hand.

20. Under such circumstance, the judgment in
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel's case referred to supra no
where advances the case of the respondent. Since the
source report, order to register the FIR and the registration
of the FIR were contrary to the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari's case and Charansingh's case, they
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

21. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The
impugned FIR at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. This order
does not preclude the respondent to conduct the
preliminary enquiry as contemplated in Lalita Kumari's and
Charansingh's case and if any material is found to proceed
against the petitioner."
(Emphasis supplied)
41

It is also germane to notice the order passed by another co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in J.GNANENDRA KUMAR v.
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA &
ANOTHER5 (supra) wherein it is held as follows:

".... .... ....

8. I have considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. A perusal of the Source Report indicates that
the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of the
properties disproportionate to the known source of income
to an extent of 89.60% from the period 1998 to March
2022. Perusal of the statement furnished along with the
memo filed by the petitioner indicates that the immovable
properties at Sl.Nos.4 and 5 in the source report alleged to
have been held by the wife was sold on 07.11.2019 and
26.06.2019, for a total sum of Rs.33,98,000/-. The
statement further indicates that net salary of the petitioner
is Rs.1.00 crore as against Rs.82,32,123/- and the rental
income received by the wife of the petitioner is
Rs.2,42,00,000/- which is evident from the income tax
returns. However, in the Source Report it is shown as
Rs.19,50,000/-. The statement further indicates that the
petitioner has contributed a sum of Rs.70,43,660/- towards
Provident fund and it is certified by the Accountant General
and the said contribution is also not taken into account in
the Source Report. The statement furnishing the said
information is not disputed by the respondent-ACB.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation and another supra at para
33 has held that:

"Conducting preliminary enquiry would not take
away from the ultimate goal of prosecuting accused persons
in a timely manner. However, if the CBI chooses not to hold
a preliminary enquiry, the accused cannot demand it as a
matter of right."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Telangana Supra has held that the preliminary enquiry
warranted in Lalitha Kumari is not required to be
mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases and

5
W.P. No.8170 of 2022 decided on 20-07-2022
42

preliminary enquiry to be conducted depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case and there are no fixed
parameters on which such enquiry can be said to be
conducted. In the present case, respondent-ACB has stated
that after conducting discreet enquiry source report has
been prepared by the officer concerned. However, certain
immovable properties sold prior to preparation of the report
and also rental income of the wife of the petitioner and also
the contribution made by petitioner towards provident fund
is not taken into account in the source report, and if the
same are deducted, inevitably the assets possessed by the
Petitioner is -9.3% of the known source of income. Hence,
the contention of the Petitioner, whether the conducting of
preliminary enquiry was mandatory or not before
registration of the FIR in the present case need not be gone
into.".

In the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN (supra) the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has clearly held that conduct of a
preliminary enquiry is necessary for the reason that it would
avoid fancy figures being quoted in the source report which
would be without application of mind and has quashed the
proceedings at the stage of FIR reserving liberty to conduct
preliminary enquiry and proceed against the petitioner therein.

11. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of CBI v. THOMMANDRU HANNAH
VIJAYALAKSHMI & ANOTHER6 (supra). The Apex Court, in
the said case, has formulated a specific issue with regard to the
preliminary enquiry being mandatory or otherwise. The Apex
Court holds as follows:

"D Whether a Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory
before registering an FIR

D.1 Precedents of this Court

14. Before proceeding with our analysis of the issue,
it is important to understand what previous judgments of
this Court have stated on the issue of whether CBI is
required to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry before the

6
2021 SCC OnLine 923
43

registration of an FIR, especially in cases of alleged
corruption against public servants.

15. The first of these is a judgment of a two Judge
Bench in P Sirajuddin (supra), in which it was observed that
before a public servant is charged with acts of dishonesty
amounting to serious misdemeanor, some suitable
preliminary enquiry must be conducted in order to obviate
incalculable harm to the reputation of that person. Justice G
K Mitter held that:

"17...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..."
(emphasis supplied)

16. The above decision was followed by another two Judge
Bench in Nirmal Singh Kahlon (supra), where it was observed that
in accordance with the CBI Manual, the CBI may only be held to
have established a prima facie case upon the completion of a
Preliminary Enquiry. Justice S B Sinha held thus:

"30. Lodging of a first information report by CBI is
governed by a manual. It may hold a preliminary inquiry; it
has been given the said power in Chapter VI of the CBI
Manual. A prima facie case may be held to have been
established only on completion of a preliminary enquiry."

17. The most authoritative pronouncement of law emerges
from the decision of a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra).
The issue before the Court was whether "a police officer is bound
to register a first information report (FIR) upon receiving any
information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973...or the police
officer has the power to conduct a 'preliminary inquiry' in order to
test the veracity of such information before registering the same".
Answering this question on behalf of the Bench, Chief Justice P
Sathasivam held that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
44

Procedure 197355, a police officer need not conduct a preliminary
enquiry and must register an FIR when the information received
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Specifically with
reference to the provisions of the CBI Manual, the decision noted:

"89. Besides, the learned Senior Counsel relied on
the special procedures prescribed under the CBI Manual to
be read into Section 154. It is true that the concept of
"preliminary inquiry" is contained in Chapter IX of the
Crime Manual of CBI. However, this Crime Manual is
not a statute and has not been enacted by the
legislature. It is a set of administrative orders issued
for internal guidance of the CBI officers. It cannot
supersede the Code. Moreover, in the absence of any
indication to the contrary in the Code itself, the
provisions of the CBI Crime Manual cannot be relied
upon to import the concept of holding of preliminary
inquiry in the scheme of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to submit
that CBI is constituted under a special Act namely, the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and it derives its
power to investigate from this Act."
(emphasis supplied)

18. However, the Court was also cognizant of the possible
misuse of the powers under criminal law resulting in the
registration of frivolous FIRs. Hence, it formulated "exceptions" to
the general rule that an FIR must be registered immediately upon
the receipt of information disclosing the commission of a cognizable
offence. The Constitution Bench held:

"115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that
Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory
registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences,
yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may
be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of
crimes with the passage of time...
[...]
117. In the context of offences relating to corruption,
this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of
Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] expressed
the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against
public servants.
[...]
119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims
regarding registration or non-registration, what is
necessary is only that the information given to the
45

police must disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is
mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made
out in the information given, then the FIR need not be
registered immediately and perhaps the police can
conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry
for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether
a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the
information given clearly mentions the commission of
a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to
register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not
relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as,
whether the information is falsely given, whether the
information is genuine, whether the information is credible,
etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the
investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR,
what is to be seen is merely whether the information given
ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
If, after investigation, the information given is found to be
false, there is always an option to prosecute the
complainant for filing a false FIR."
(emphasis supplied)

19. The judgment provides the following conclusions:

"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not
disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not.
[...]
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not
to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
[...]
46

(d) Corruption cases
[...]
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry."
(emphasis supplied)

20. The Constitution Bench thus held that a Preliminary
Enquiry is not mandatory when the information received discloses
the commission of a cognizable offence. Even when it is conducted,
the scope of a Preliminary Enquiry is not to ascertain the veracity
of the information, but only whether it reveals the commission of a
cognizable offence. The need for a Preliminary Enquiry will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. As an illustration,
"corruption cases" fall in that category of cases where a Preliminary
Enquiry "may be made". The use of the expression "may be made"
goes to emphasize that holding a preliminary enquiry is not
mandatory. Dwelling on the CBI Manual, the Constitution Bench
held that : (i) it is not a statute enacted by the legislature; and
(ii) it is a compendium of administrative orders for the internal
guidance of the CBI.

21. The judgment in Lalita Kumari (supra) was analyzed by
a three Judge Bench of this Court in Yashwant Sinha (supra) where
the Court refused to grant the relief of registration of an FIR based
on information submitted by the appellant-informant. In his
concurring opinion, Justice K M Joseph described that a barrier to
granting the relief of registration of an FIR against a public figure
would be the observations of this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra)
noting that a Preliminary Enquiry may be desirable before doing so.
Justice Joseph observes:

"108. Para 120.6 [of Lalita Kumari] deals with the
type of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made.
Corruption cases are one of the categories of cases where a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted...
[...]
110. In para 117 of Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524], this Court referred to the decision in P.
Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [P. Sirajuddin v. State of
Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and took
the view that in the context of offences related to corruption
in the said decision, the Court has expressed a need for a
preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public
servants.
[...]
47

112. In Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], one of the
contentions which was pressed before the Court was that in
certain situations, preliminary inquiry is necessary. In this
regard, attention of the Court was drawn to CBI Crime
Manual...
[...]
114. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524], had before it, the CBI Crime Manual. It also
considered the decision of this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P.
Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970
SCC (Cri) 240] which declared the necessity for preliminary
inquiry in offences relating to corruption. Therefore, the
petitioners may not be justified in approaching this Court
seeking the relief of registration of an FIR and investigation
on the same as such. This is for the reason that one of the
exceptions where immediate registration of FIR may not be
resorted to, would be a case pointing fingers at a public
figure and raising the allegation of corruption. This Court
also has permitted preliminary inquiry when there is delay,
laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over
three months. A preliminary inquiry, it is to be noticed in
para 120.7, is to be completed within seven days."
(emphasis supplied)

22. The decision of a two Judge Bench in Managipet (supra)
thereafter has noted that while the decision in Lalita
Kumari (supra) held thats a Preliminary Enquiry was desirable in
cases of alleged corruption, that does not vest a right in the
accused to demand a Preliminary Enquiry. Whether a Preliminary
Enquiry is required or not will depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case, and it cannot be said to be mandatory
requirement without which a case cannot be registered against the
accused in corruption cases. Justice Hemant Gupta held thus:

"28. In Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], the Court
has laid down the cases in which a preliminary inquiry is
warranted, more so, to avoid an abuse of the process of law
rather than vesting any right in favour of an accused.
Herein, the argument made was that if a police officer is
doubtful about the veracity of an accusation, he has to
conduct a preliminary inquiry and that in certain appropriate
cases, it would be proper for such officer, on the receipt of a
complaint of a cognizable offence, to satisfy himself that
48

prima facie, the allegations levelled against the accused in
the complaint are credible...

29. The Court concluded that the registration of an
FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the
information discloses commission of a cognizable offence
and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation...

30. It must be pointed out that this Court has not
held that a preliminary inquiry is a must in all cases. A
preliminary enquiry may be conducted pertaining to
matrimonial disputes/family disputes, commercial offences,
medical negligence cases, corruption cases, etc. The
judgment of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524] does not state that proceedings cannot be
initiated against an accused without conducting a
preliminary inquiry.
[...]
32...The scope and ambit of a preliminary
inquiry being necessary before lodging an FIR would
depend upon the facts of each case. There is no set
format or manner in which a preliminary inquiry is to
be conducted. The objective of the same is only to
ensure that a criminal investigation process is not
initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That
is the test laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524].

33. In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the
information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets
of the accused officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry
is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in
furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein, relevant
information was available with the informant in respect of
prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence.
Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with
such disclosure, he can proceed against the accused even
without conducting any inquiry or by any other manner on
the basis of the credible information received by him. It
cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for
the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not
conducted. The same can only be done if upon a
reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is
disclosed. Reference in this regard, is made to a judgment
49

of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426] wherein, this Court held inter alia that where the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused and also where a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

34. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry
warranted in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] is not
required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption
cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple
instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be
conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such
inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal
and informal collection of information disclosing a
cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person
recording the FIR is sufficient."
(emphasis supplied)

23. In Charansingh (supra), the two Judge bench was
confronted with a challenge to a decision to hold a Preliminary
Enquiry. The court adverted to the ACB Manual in Maharashtra and
held that a statement provided by an individual in an "open
inquiry" in the nature of a Preliminary Enquiry would not be
confessional in nature and hence, the individual cannot refuse to
appear in such an inquiry on that basis. Justice M R Shah, writing
for the two Judge bench consisting also of one of us (Justice D Y
Chandrachud) held:

"11. However, whether in a case of a complaint
against a public servant regarding accumulating the assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income, which can
be said to be an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an enquiry at pre-FIR
stage is permissible or not and/or it is desirable or not, if
any decision is required, the same is governed by the
decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524].
50

11.1. While considering the larger question, whether
police is duty-bound to register an FIR and/or it is
mandatory for registration of FIR on receipt of information
disclosing a cognizable offence and whether it is mandatory
or the police officer has option, discretion or latitude of
conducting preliminary enquiry before registering FIR, this
Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] has
observed that it is mandatory to register an FIR on receipt
of information disclosing a cognizable offence and it is the
general rule. However, while holding so, this Court has also
considered the situations/cases in which preliminary enquiry
is permissible/ desirable. While holding that the
registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154, if
the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in
such a situation and the same is the general rule and
must be strictly complied with, this Court has carved
out certain situations/cases in which the preliminary
enquiry is held to be permissible/desirable before
registering/lodging of an FIR. It is further observed
that if the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to
ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or
not. It is observed that as to what type and in which
cases the preliminary enquiry is to be conducted will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
[...]

[...]

his known sources of income. After the enquiry/enquiry
at pre-registration of FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on
the basis of the material collected during such enquiry, it is
found that the complaint is vexatious and/or there is no
substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall not be
lodged. However, if the material discloses prima facie
a commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be
lodged and the criminal proceedings will be put in
motion and the further investigation will be carried
out in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be
permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR
would be registered. Therefore, such a preliminary
enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged
accused also against whom the complaint is made.

15.2. Even as held by this Court in CBI v. Tapan
Kumar Singh [CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC
175 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1305], a GD entry recording the
information by the informant disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and
the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the
same. However, in an appropriate case, such as allegations
of misconduct of corrupt practice by a public servant, before
lodging the first information report and further conducting
the investigation, if the preliminary enquiry is conducted to
ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not,
no fault can be found. Even at the stage of registering the
FIR, what is required to be considered is whether the
information given discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis
for the police officer to suspect the commission of a
cognizable offence. At this stage, it is enough if the police
officer on the basis of the information given suspects the
commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must
be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down by
this Court in a catena of decisions that at the stage of
lodging the first information report, the police officer
need not be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable
offence has been committed, considering the
observations made by this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P.
Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC
595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the
observations by this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
52

(Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held
and/or conducted after following the procedure as
per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption & Prohibition
Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the
same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-
Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or
authority and/or power at all to conduct such an
enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage."

(emphasis supplied)

24. Hence, all these decisions do not mandate that a
Preliminary Enquiry must be conducted before the registration of
an FIR in corruption cases. An FIR will not stand vitiated because a
Preliminary Enquiry has not been conducted. The decision
in Managipet (supra) dealt specifically with a case of
Disproportionate Assets. In that context, the judgment holds that
where relevant information regarding prima facie allegations
disclosing a cognizable offence is available, the officer recording
the FIR can proceed against the accused on the basis of the
information without conducting a Preliminary Enquiry.

25. This conclusion is also supported by the judgment of
another Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami (supra). The
judgment was in context of Section 5(1)(e) of the old Prevention of
Corruption Act 1947, which is similar to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC
Act. It was argued that : (i) a public servant must be afforded an
opportunity to explain the alleged Disproportionate Assets before
an Investigating Officer; (ii) this must then be included and
explained by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet;
and (iii) the failure to do so would render the charge sheet invalid.
Rejecting this submission, the Constitution Bench held that doing
so would elevate the Investigating Officer to the role of an enquiry
officer or a Judge and that their role was limited only to collect
material in order to ascertain whether the alleged offence has been
committed by the public servant. In his opinion for himself and
Justice Venkatachaliah, Justice K Jagannatha Shetty held thus:

"75...since the legality of the charge-sheet has been
impeached, we will deal with that contention also. Counsel
laid great emphasis on the expression "for which he cannot
satisfactorily account" used in clause (e) of Section 5(1) of
the Act. He argued that that term means that the public
servant is entitled to an opportunity before the Investigating
Officer to explain the alleged disproportionality between
assets and the known sources of income. The Investigating
Officer is required to consider his explanation and the
53

charge-sheet filed by him must contain such averment. The
failure to mention that requirement would vitiate the
charge-sheet and renders it invalid. This submission, if we
may say so, completely overlooks the powers of the
Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is only
required to collect material to find out whether the offence
alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of
the investigation, he may examine the accused. He may
seek his clarification and if necessary he may cross check
with him about his known sources of income and assets
possessed by him. Indeed, fair investigation requires as
rightly stated by Mr. A.D. Giri, learned Solicitor General,
that the accused should not be kept in darkness. He should
be taken into confidence if he is willing to cooperate. But to
state that after collection of all material the
Investigating Officer must give an opportunity to the
accused and call upon him to account for the excess
of the assets over the known sources of income and
then decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or
not, would be elevating the Investigating Officer to
the position of an enquiry officer or a judge. The
Investigating Officer is not holding an enquiry against
the conduct of the public servant or determining the
disputed issues regarding the disproportionality
between the assets and the income of the accused. He
just collects material from all sides and prepares a
report which he files in the court as charge-sheet."
(emphasis supplied)

26. Therefore, since an accused public servant does not
have a right to be afforded a chance to explain the alleged
Disproportionate Assets to the Investigating Officer before the filing
of a charge sheet, a similar right cannot be granted to the accused
before the filing of an FIR by making a Preliminary Enquiry
mandatory.

27. Having revisited the precedents of this Court, it is now
necessary to consider the provisions of the CBI Manual.

D.2 CBI Manual
28. In the judgment in Vineet Narain (supra), as three
Judge Bench of this Court noted that the provisions of the CBI
Manual must be followed by the officers of the CBI strictly, and
disciplinary action should be taken against those who deviate from
them. Chief Justice J S Verma noted:
54

"58. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we
hereby direct as under:

I. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC)

[...]

12. The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of
the CrPC provides essential guidelines for the CBI's
functioning. It is imperative that the CBI adheres
scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its
investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any
deviation from the established procedure should be viewed
seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the
officials concerned."

29. In the later judgment of a two judge Bench
in Shashikant (supra), its was held that the CBI cannot be faulted
for conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in accordance with the CBI
Manual. Justice S B Sinha held:

"9...It is also not disputed that the CBI Manual was
made by the Central Government providing for detailed
procedure as regards the mode and manner in which
complaints against public servants are to be dealt with.
[...]
11. The CBI Manual provides for a preliminary
inquiry. By reason thereof a distinction has been made
between a preliminary inquiry and a regular case. A
preliminary inquiry in terms of para 9.1 of the CBI Manual
may be converted into a regular case as soon as sufficient
material becomes available to show that prima facie there
has been commission of a cognizable offence.
[...]
19. When an anonymous complaint is received,
no investigating officer would initiate investigative
process immediately thereupon. It may for good
reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out
the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained
therein.
[...]
25...The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual
and in particular when it was required to inquire into
the allegation of the corruption on the part of some
public servants, recourse to the provisions of the
Manual cannot be said to be unfair..."
55

(emphasis supplied)

30. In Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), a two judge Bench
observed that the provisions of the CBI Manual require strict
compliance. Justice B S Chauhan held:

"24...the CBI Manual, being based on statutory
provisions of CrPC, provides for guidelines which require
strict compliance. More so, in view of the fact that the ratio
of the judgment of this Court in M.M. Rajendran [State of
T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran, (1998) 9 SCC 268 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
1000] has been incorporated in the CBI Manual, the CBI
Manual itself is the best authority to determine the issue at
hand. The court has to read the relevant provisions of the
CBI Manual alone and no judgment of this Court can be a
better guiding factor under such a scenario."

31. Hence, it is necessary to scrutinize the provisions of the
CBI Manual. Chapter 8 of the CBI Manual is titled "Complaints and
Source Information". Para 8.1 notes that the CBI must register
every complaint it receives, whatever be its source, before it starts
verifying it. Para 8.6(ii) provides that verification can be
undertaken for "[c]omplaints containing specific and definite
allegations involving corruption or serious misconduct against
public servants etc., falling within the ambit of CBI, which can be
verified". Paras 8.8-8.9 describe the process of verification where
the officers are to examine records informally and discreetly
without making written requisitions, and that this process ordinarily
should not take more than three months but can take up to four
months for complicated cases. Para 8.24 indicates that the officer
entrusted with verification must submit a detailed report at the end
of the process with specific recommendations, including whether a
Preliminary Enquiry is required or if a Regular Case should be
registered directly.

32. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the
basis of "Source Information". Both during the course of the
hearing and in the affidavit filed by CBI, it has been explained that
CBI found information and documents while investigating another
case. Para 8.26 of the CBI Manual notes that every officer of the
CBI can develop source information "regarding graft, misuse of
official position, possession of disproportionate assets, fraud,
embezzlement, serious economic offences, illegal trading in
narcotics and psychotropic substances, counterfeiting of currency,
smuggling of antiques, acts endangering wildlife and environment,
cybercrimes, serious frauds of banking/financial institutions,
smuggling of arms and ammunition, forgery of passports, etc. and
56

other matters falling within the purview of CBI and verify the same
to ascertain whether any prima facie material is available to
undertake an open probe". However, while doing so, they are to
keep their superior officer 'well informed'. Further, para 8.27
describes the process once such "source information" is developed
and submitted to the superior officer. It reads as follows:

"8.27. The source information once developed must
be submitted in writing giving all available details with
specific acts of omissions and commissions and copies of
documents collected discreetly. The internal vigilance
enquiries or departmental enquiry reports should normally
not be used as basis for submitting the source information.
The SP concerned after satisfying himself that there is prima
facie material meriting action by CBI and further verification
is likely to result in registration of a regular case, would
order verification if it falls within his competence. In the
cases which are within the competence of higher officers, he
will forward his detailed comments to the DIG and obtain
orders from superior officer competent to order registration.
The verification of SIRs must begin only after the competent
authority has approved its registration. At this stage a
regular SIR number will be assigned to the SIR which will
also be entered in the source information sub-module of
Crimes Module with all other details."

33. The superior officer thus has to verify whether the
developed "source information" prima facie would result in
the registration of a case by the CBI; if yes, they then have
to direct the verification of such information. Verification is
governed by para 8.29, which speaks of a process similar to
para 8.9. Para 8.32 provides that verification of "source
information" shall be completed within three months and
approval of the Competent Authority is required to carry out
verification beyond that period. Similar to para 8.24, under
para 8.33, the officer entrusted with verification has to
submit a report with specific recommendations on whether
a Preliminary Enquiry is required or if a Regular Case should
be registered directly."
(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court considers entire spectrum of law and at
sub-para 15.1 of paragraph 23 holds that an enquiry at pre-FIR
stage is held to be permissible; not only permissible but
desirable, more particularly in cases where the allegations are of
misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring assets/properties
57

disproportionate to his known sources of income. This cannot
be demanded as a matter or right is what is held, apart from
holding that there cannot be a hearing given to the accused
prior to drawing up of a source report or registration of a crime.
The Apex Court nevertheless holds that the preliminary inquiry
is not only desirable but necessary in such cases. At paragraph
33 the Apex Court holds that the superior officer thus has to
verify whether the developed source information prima facie
would result in the registration of a case; if yes, they then will
have to direct verification of such information. Though the entire
verification was governed by the CBI manual which the Apex
Court had already held that it should be strictly and scrupulously
followed, the Apex Court holds that preliminary inquiry would
not be a matter of right or necessary in every case.

12. If the reasons rendered by Apex Court are noticed,
two factors would emerge - one, that the prosecution is
required to draw up source report after conducting some sort of
a preliminary enquiry to know the assets of the Government
servant and two, after the source information report is placed
before the Superior Officer - Superintendent of Police, he has to
verify as to whether a crime should be registered or otherwise.
If these principles that would emerge from the judgment of the
Apex Court are considered qua the facts obtaining in the case at
hand, the registration of the crime would fall foul of the
principles laid down by the Apex Court and that of this Court in
the afore-quoted judgment. Therefore, on this short ground
that the source information report disclosed blatant non-
application of mind and non-conduct of preliminary inquiry as is
necessary in law only in cases concerning disproportionate
assets, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime and pass
the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The FIR in Crime No.6 of 2022 registered on 15-03-2022 and pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru stands quashed.

(ii) Notwithstanding quashment of the aforementioned FIR, liberty is reserved to the respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta to draw up a source report and register FIR against the petitioner strictly in consonance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.H.VIJAYALAKSHMI and that of this Court in the case of N NAVANEETH MOHAN (supra)."

In the light of the afore-quoted judgments what would

unmistakably emerge is, the necessity and imperativeness of

conduct of preliminary enquiry prior to registration of the crime.

The coordinate Bench clearly holds that the source report is

erroneously drawn and figures are fancifully shown. Be that as it

may, these generally would require a trial.

11. In the light of the legal issues projected in the case at

hand being answered by the coordinate Bench supra, which has

been followed by this Bench in plethora of cases, the unmistakable

inference would be obliteration of the crime with the observations

that are made by the coordinate Bench in the judgment quoted

supra. Hence, I deem it appropriate to follow suit by observing that