The Karnataka High Court in a case quashed an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002 without verifying the Income Tax Return.
The applicant Channakeshava.H.D is an Assistant Engineer at Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. Subsequently, he was transferred to Koramangala Division and Hebbala Division of BESCOM and worked as an Executive Engineer.
Upon the source report, the respondent police registered an FIR wherein it is alleged that, when the applicant was working as Executive Engineer at BESCOM from 11.11.1998 till 30.09.2023, he accumulated assets to the tune of Rs.6,64,67,000/- (92.54%) disproportionate to the known source of his income. Therefore, the Police registered an FIR after receiving the order Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is under challenge.
Read Also: Karnataka HC Revises Penalty to 25% from 100% as Firm Paid Tax with Accrued Interest Before SCN
At the time of the adjudication Prasanna Kumar P, the petitioner’s counsel furnished that there is no order passed under proviso (ii) to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which is mandatory for investigating the matter under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It contended that to secure the interest of the government servant, a preliminary inquiry has to be executed against the government servant before registering an FIR and subsequently, an FIR will be registered, if the cognizable offence is made out. Therefore they have not verified the ITR and APRs in preliminary enquiry before taking the investigation.
The whole additional supplementary chargesheet, there is nothing to recommend that the applicant is not aware of money laundering activities as are alleged against her husband and other accused persons. B.S.Prasad the respondent’s counsel claimed that there is an order passed by the Superintendent of Police u/s 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was not verified by the applicant.
Related: Alert! Heavy Penalties on Such Types of Tax-Evading Methods
It claimed that on the source report foundation, the Superintendent of Police has conducted the preliminary inquiry and subsequently, passed the order for registering the FIR.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the preliminary inquiry is not needed in this case as the police officer has prepared the source report and that itself is a preliminary inquiry, and no more preliminary inquiry is needed, unlike the complaint filed by the private individual.
It was noted that the police did not conduct any preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR. Indeed the source report is not adequate as the starting duration of the property in possession of the applicant was represented as Nil or Zero. Hence the source report is not enough and the order passed through the Superintendent of Police is non-application of mind.
A single bench of Justice K. Natarajan’s post examining the points and arguments of both parties, quashed an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002 without verifying the Income Tax Return (ITR).
| Case Title | Sri. Channakeshava. H.D. Vs State of Karnataka |
| Case No.: | Writ Petition No.28052 of 2023 |
| Date | 25.04.2024 |
| Karnataka High Court | Read Order |
