New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has said that doing a preliminary inquiry, is not mandatory in every case filed under the prevention of the Corruption Act and it is not the inherent right of the accused.
The court has said that a preliminary inquiry is desirable in some categories, including people registered under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, it is not an essential pre-essence for registration of a criminal case.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Dutt and Sandeep Mehta has said that the objective of the initial investigation is not to verify the truth of the information obtained, but only to find out if the said information has revealed the commission of a cognitive crime.
The bench said in a judgment on 17 February, “Preliminary investigation in every case is not mandatory under the PC Act.”
“If a better officer is in a source of a source information report, which is both wide and well, and in such a way that any proper person will consider that this Prima Facial reveals the commission of a cognitive crime, then initial The investigation may be avoided, “Said.
The apex court gave its verdict on an appeal filed by the Karnataka government, challenging the March 2024 decision of the State High Court.
The High Court had removed a cedar lodged by the Karnataka Lokayukta police station against a public servant for alleged crimes under the PC Act.
The public servant was accused of receiving the assets that were odd to their known sources of income.
The apex court settled the issue as to whether an initial inquiry was mandatory before directing the registration of an FIR under the PC Act in the facts of the case or whether the source information report could be considered as an alternative to a preliminary inquiry.
Referring to the decisions of the previous apex court, the bench said, “Applying these principles in hand in the case, it is clear that conducting the initial investigation is not signed to file a case against a public servant. , Which is accused of corruption. ” “While an initial investigation is desirable in some cases, including the PC Act, it is neither the inherent right of the accused nor an essential pre-existing exercise for registration of a criminal case,” it said.
The court said that it was determined whether the preliminary investigation was necessary or not would be different according to the facts and circumstances of each case.
It said that the High Court has concluded that the FIR was abandoned due to lapse to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the case.
The bench has also mentioned Section 17 of the PC Act which belongs to authorized persons for investigation.
In this case, in this case, the Superintendent of Police said after forming an opinion that in the November 2023 source information report, Prima Feshi had revealed the necessary ingredients of the offenses punishable under the Act. And he authorized him to investigate the case.
“Our opinion is that the High Court has severely erased the ability to disable law-enforcement agencies by implementing a structure of administrative obstacles in cases of corruption, implementing unexpected embryos on the investigating agency,” this may have the ability to disable, ” Said.
The court stated that by compulsory pre-ex-procedures and building improper proximity check dams, the high court perspective had the ability to present the effectiveness of the law enforcement will.
The apex court said that the legislative intention behind the Act was to provide a strong mechanism to investigate crimes related to corruption and avoid the creation of procedural obstacles to mold corrupt officials.
“Explaining such procedural laws, it should be kept in mind that interpretation should be facilitated and should not disappoint the investigation of potential criminal activities, especially in cases associated with serious allegations of corruption,” it said .
It said that a fair investigation cannot be interpreted only to complete the accused, but it should be such that the law supports the law and the fixed procedure established in the entire investigation process.
The bench mentioned that the Superintendent of Police was entrusted to the Administrative Authority to direct his subordinates to register an FIR for receiving a factual report, which was revealed by Prima Facial to the Commission for punishable offenses under the PC Act.
“The High Court erased to come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on December 4, 2023 was passed directly under Section 17 of the PC Act, which violated the compulsory provisions of the PC Act,” said this .
The bench separated the High Court verdict and restored the cedar filed against the accused.
(Tagstotransite) Supreme Court (T) Supreme Court Statement (T) Prevention of Corruption Act Act
