M. KRISHNAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

A                               M. KRISHNA
                                     v.
                            STATE OF KARNATAKA

                               FEBRUARY 19, 1999

B                  (G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SH.'\H, JJ.]

         Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 161, 482--l'revelltion of cor-
  ntption Act, 1988-Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2)-Complaint of possession of dis-
  proportionate assets-'B' form in earlier FIR accepted by competent
C court-Earlier check period covered in second FIR-Whether the second FIR
  is liable to be quashed on this ground-field, No-!t cannot be a ground for
  quashing the FIR.

          Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 13(l)(e), 13(2T-Valua-
   ition of assets-Whether assets valued at a particular rate in earlier proceeding
D !~an be enhanced later-Held, cannot be valued higher in a later proceeding
    unless any positive ground is therefor valuation.

        A complaint was drawn in 1989 against the appellant, a Class-I
  Officer of Karnataka Administrative Service under Sections 13(1)(e) read
E with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground of
  possession of disproportionate assets. After investigation a 'B' report was
  submitted in 1991 and it was accepted by the Special Judge. The
  appellant's properties were ·released from attachment. Later, in 1995 an
  FIR was filed against the appellant for offences under Section 13(1)(e)
  read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 on the allegation that between
F 1.8.1978 and 25.7.1995 the appellant had acquired assets disproportionate
  to his known sources of income, and investigation was ordered.

        The appellant challenged the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the
  ground that the second FIR is not maintainable for the period 1.8.1978 to
G 24.8.1989. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the FIR
  cannot be quashed.

         On appeal before this Court, the appellant contended, that the assets
  of the appellant for the period 1.8.1978 to 24.8.1989 having been the subject
  matter of an investigation in Crime Case No. 22 of 1989 a 'B' form having
H been filed by the investigating agency which was approved by the
                                        780
                              M. KRISHNA v. STATE                           781
     ~gistrate, inclusion of the said perio'd in the fresh FIR is itself bad and A
     the FIR is .liable to be quashed, that after the FIR is given whatever
     statements are received are in course of investigation under Section 161 of
     Cr.P.C. and there cannot be two FIRs for the same period; that in view of
     Section l3(1)(e) of Prev~ntion of Corruption Act the explanation offered
     by the appellant in respect of prior proceedings having been accepted the
     said assets could not have been again taken into account for a subsequent
                                                                                   B
     criminal case; that the assets of the Government Servant are to be valued
     on the date of acquisition and not on the date of verifying of the fact as in
     the present case and such valuation itself is an unfair investigation causing
     undue harassment to the accused appellant.
                                                                                   c~
c-         The respondents contended that the present case does not fall within
     the parameters set by the court for quashing an FIR; that acceptance of a
     'B' form by the court cannot be held to be order of acquittal after trial,
     and there is no legal impediment to have a fresh FIR for the entire service
     period of a government servant and investigate into the assets of the
     employee for the entire· period; that the assets of the employee shall be D
     valued on the date of acquisition and on the date when the criminal case
     was instituted, and that the investigating agency is duty bound to take into
     consideration the fact of 'B' form and the order of the Magistrate, before
     ultimately filing the chargesheet or the 'B' form as the case may be but the
     very investigation cannot be quashed at this stage.                          E

           Disposing of the appeal, the Court

           HELD : 1. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. which debars the filing
     of an FIR and investigating into the alleged offences merely because for
     an earlier period namely, 1.8.1978 to 24.8.1989 there was First Information   F
     Report which was duly investigated into and culminated in a 'B' form
     which was accepted by a competent court. (785-B]

           2. The conclusion of the High Court that the present proceeding
     relates to fresh alleged assets and fresh check period is not wholly correct,
     in as much as admittedly the check period from 1.8.1978 till 24.8.1989 was G
     the subject matter in the Crime Case No. 22 of 89 and the same ended in
     submission of 'B' form. Though the earlier period also could be a subject
     matter of investigation for variety of reasons like some assets not being
     taken into account or some materials brought during investigation not
     being taken into account yet at the same time the results to the earlier H ·
    782                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A investigation cannot be totally obliterated and ignored by the Investigating
    Agency. B.ut that cannot be a ground for quashing of the First Information
    Report itself and for injecting the investigating authority to investigate
    into the offence alleged. (785-B-D]

          3. The contention of the appellant that the assets which were valued
B   in the earlier investigation proceeding at a particular value cannot be
    valued higher in the present proceeding unless any positive ground is there
    for such valuation is correct. (785-D-E]

          (The Court observed that though the FIR is not quashed it is made
C clear that the investigating authority will certainly look into the earlier
    proceedings and the result of investigation thereunder and the submission
    of 'B' Form which was duly accepted by the competent Court while inves- •
    tigating into the present proceeding as well as the observations made by
    the Court in this Judgment.) (785-E-F]

D          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No ..
    216 .of 1999.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.97 of the Karnataka High
    Court in Crl. P. No. 617 of 1995.

E        Kapil Sibal, Siddharth Dave, Lakshmi Narayan, Ms. Beena Gupta,
    Ms. Rakhi Ray, S.K. Kulkarni, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, P. Mahale, S.V.
    Mahale and K.R. Nagaraja for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F         PATIANAIK, J. Leave granted.

         The appellant is a Class-I officer of Karnataka Administrative Ser-
  vice. On 24.8.1989 a report was drawn up against him under Section
  13(1)(e) read with· Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
  alleging therein that he has assets disproportionate to his known source of
G income. After investigation the Inspector General of Police, Bureau of
  Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta authorised the Investigating Officer to
  submit a 'B' report before the Special Judge, Bangalore where the matter
  was pending and after issuance of a public notice in the prescribed form
  inviting objections to the aforesaid 'B' report from the interested persons
H by order dated 11.4.1991, the said 'B' report was accepted by the learned
+
                     M. KRISHNA v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.]                     783

    Special Judge. Properties of the appellant which had been earlier attached      A
    were directed to be released. On 25.7.95 the Supdt. of Police Karnataka
    Lokayukta authorised the Deputy Supdt. of Police to investigate into the
    assets of the appellant and find out whether an offence has been committed
    under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Cor-
    ruption Act, 1988. On the same day an FIR was filed alleging commission         B
    of offence against the appellant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section
    13(2) of the Act and the gravamen of the allegation is that between the
    period from 1.8.78 to 25.7.95 the appellanrhas acquired assets amounting
    to Rs. 58,77,000 as against his known source of income of Rs. 9,90,000 and
    thereby the disproportion is to the tune of Rs.52,17,000. The appellant filed
    a Criminal Petition before the High Court of Karnataka invoking jurisdic-       C
    tion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for
    quashing of the FIR in LAC Crime no. 21 of 95 inter alia on the ground
    that Crime No.22 of 89 having been registered against the appellant for a
    check period 1.8.78 till 24.8.89 and after due investigation a 'B' report
    having been filed and the same being accepted it was not proper for the         D
    investigating Authority to file another FIR which includes the earlier check
    period of 1.8.78 till 24.8.89. The,learned Judge of the High Court, however,
    was not persuaded to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned
    counsel appearing for the appellant, and on examining the FIR and the
    allegations made therein came to the conclusion that it was a set of fresh
    allegations in respect of fresh alleged assets during a fresh check period      E
    and as such, question of qu11-shing the FIR does not arise. It is against the
    aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court the
    present appeal has been preferred.

          Mr. Sibbal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
    contended that the assets of the appellant for the period 1.8.78 till 24.8.89   F
    having been the subject matter of an investigation pursuant to Crime Case
    No. 22 of 89 and a 'B' form having been filed by the investigating Agency
    which was approved by the Magistrate, inclusion of the said period in the
    fresh FIR is itself bad and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. Mr.
    Sibbal, also contended that in view of Sub-Section (8) of Section 173 of the    G
    Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Agency has the right to file
    fresh report on the basis of fresh materials but that not hatjng been done
    the impugned FIR for the period 1.8.78 till 25.7.95 cannot be sustained.
    According to Mr. Sibbal the very fact that the Investigating Agency is not
    aware of the earlier criminal proceeding and the investigation thereupon
                                                                                    H
    784                  SUPREME COURTREPORTS                   [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A which ultimately ended in a 'B' form and accepted by the Court indicates
  the total non-application of mind and pursuing the appellant maliciously
   and, therefore, the Court should interfere with the proceeding. According
   to Mr. Sibbal after the FIR is given whatever statements are received are
  jn course of investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
   Procedure and that being the position there cannot be two .FIRs fot the
B period 1.8.78 till 24.8.89. The learned counsel also urged that in view of the
   provisions contained in Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
   Act the explanation offered by the accused in respect of the prior proceed-
   ings having been accepted· the said assets could not have been again taken
   into account for a subsequent criminal case. Mr. Sibbal also further sub-
C mitted that in any view of the matter the assets of the Government servant
   are to be valued on the date of acquisition and not on the date of verifying
   of· the fact and the very asset which was valued in course of earlier
   proceeding at Rs. one lakh should not have been valued at Rs. three lakhs
   or Rs .. Four lakhs, as in the present case and such valuation itself is an
   unfair investigatiOn causing undue harassment to the accused appellant.
D
           Mr. Mabale, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on
    the other hand submitted, that the .parameters for quashing an FIR having
   been laid down by this Court in Bhajan Lat's case and certain illustrations
    given by this Court, the present case does not fall within the said
E parameters and, therefore, the High Court was fully justified in not accept-
    ing the prayer of the accused appellant. Mr. Mahale also submitted that
    acceptance of a 'B' form by the Court cannot be held to be an order of
    acquittal after the accused being tried as provided under Section 300 of
    the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, there is no legal impedi-
  . ment to have a fresh First Information Report for the entire service period
F of a government servant and investigate into the assets of the employee for
     the entire period. Mr. Mahale, however, fairly stated that the assets of the
    employee will have to be. valued on the date of acquisition and· not on the·
     date the Criminal case is being instituted. He al.so submitted that the
    investigating Agency is duty bound to take into consideration, the fact <;if
     'B' form filed in Criminal Case No. 22 of 89 and the order of the Magistrate
G passed thereon before ultimately filing the chargesheet or the 'B' form as
     the ca5e ·may be, in the present case. But according to hiril the very
     investigation. cannot be quashed at this stage.


           Having considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the
 H parties and having examined the provisions of .the Criminal Procedure
·+
                      M. KRISHNA v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.]                     785
     Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act we find ourselves unable A
     to agree with the submission of Mr. Sibbal, the learned senior counsel
     ap°peating for the appellant that the present FIR itself is bad in law. We
     do not find any provision in the Code which debars the filing of an FIR
     and investigating into th~ alleged offences merely because for an earlier
     period namely 1.8.78 to 24.8.89 there was First Information Report which
     was duly investigated into and culminated in a 'B' form which was accepted B
     by a Competent Court. At the same time we are also of the opinion that
     the conclusion of the High Court that the present proceeding relates to
     fresh alleged assets and fresh check period is not wholly correct, in as much
     as admittedly the check period from 1.8.78 till 24.8.89 was the subject
     matter in the Crime Case No. 22 of 89 and the same ended in submission
     of 'B' form. Though the earlier period also could be a subject matter of
                                                                                      c
     investigation for variety of reasons like some assets not being taken into
     account or some materials brought during investigation not being taken
     into account yet at the same time the results of the earlier investigation
     cannot be totally obliterated and ignored by the Investigating Agency. But
     that cannot be a ground for quashing of the First Information Report itself D
     and for injuncting the investigating authority to investigate into the offence .
     alleged. We also find sufficient force in the arguments of Mr. Sibbal that
     the assets which were valued in the earlier investigation proceeding at a
     particular. value cannot be valued higher in the present proceeding unless
     any positive ground is there for such valuation. For example, a car which
     was valued in the earlier proceeding at Rs. 60,000 could not have been E
     valued at Rs. 1,70,000 in the present proceedings but at this stage the Court
     is not required to go into these matters as investigation is only at threshold.
     For the aforesaid reasons, while we are not in a position to quash the FIR,
     but we would make it clear that the Investigating Authority will certainly
     look into the earlier proceedings and the result of investigation thereunder
                                                                                      F
     and the submission of 'B' Form which was duly accepted by the competent
     Court while investigating into the present proceedings as well as the
     observations made by us ii:! this Judgment. Subject to the aforesaid obser-
     vations this appeal is disposed of.

     V.M.                                                    Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                     '