FIR In Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated Merely Because Public Servant Wasn't Heard Before Registration: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that an accused public servant has no right to explain his disproportionate assets prior to lodging of FIR.Relying on the judgments of Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Channakeshava. H.D and anr , Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijaylakshmi and K. Veeeraswami Vs. Union of India, the bench of Justice Abdul Moin and...
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that an accused public servant has no right to explain his disproportionate assets prior to lodging of FIR.
Relying on the judgments of Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Channakeshava. H.D and anr , Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijaylakshmi and K. Veeeraswami Vs. Union of India, the bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava held,
“…the accused public servant does not have any right to explain the disproportionate assets prior to lodging of First Information Report.”
A FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly spending about Rs. 2.51 crores whereas his legal income from all sources was about Rs. 1.95 crores. Petitioner challenged the FIR in writ jurisdiction before the High Court on grounds that the allegations were false.
It was argued that a case under Section 13 can only be registered if the accused has not been able to satisfactorily explain the sources of his income. It was pleaded that to determine the same, explanation must be sought from the accused prior to registration of the FIR, which was not done in the present case.
The Court observed that in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijaylakshmi it has been held that a FIR in corruption cases will not vitiated merely because a preliminary inquiry has not been conducted.
Perusing Section 13 of the Act which provides for criminal conduct by a public servant, the Court held,
“From a perusal of Section 13 of the Act, 1988 it emerges that the a public servant is said to commit an offence of criminal conduct if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control or allows any other person to do so or he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.”
The Court observed that Explanation 1 to Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act, 1988 does not require that an explanation be sought from the accused person before lodging an FIR. It noted that in K. Veeeraswami Vs. Union of India the Apex Court had held that no explanation is to be sought before filing of chargesheet in such cases. By extension, the Court held that it was not a matter of right to seek explanation from the delinquent public servant before lodging FIR.
Accordingly, the Court held that merely because explanation was not sought from the petitioner, the FIR would not be vitiated. Accordingly, the writ petition against the FIR was dismissed.
Case Title: Deena Nath Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Confidential And Vigilance, Lko. And Others