Scrutinising the manner of probe done by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a case, the High Court of Karnataka said that “the ACB blissfully ignored the ABC of procedure” by throwing norms to the wind in registering an First Information Report against a public servant.
Also, the court said the ACB has “acted in hottest haste” in preparing a source information report within 24 hours without even collecting basic details of sources of income and approximate percentage of disproportionate assets prior to registering the FIR.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while quashing the FIR registered on March 16, 2022, against 37-year-old K.R. Kumar Naik, executive engineer of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom), Nelamangala, for allegedly possessing disproportionate assets.
The ACB had registered an FIR against J. Jnanendra Kumar, additional commissioner of transport, on March 15, 2022, for allegedly possessing disproportionate assets and premises belonging to Mr. Jnanendra and one Munavar Pasha were searched on March 16.
As some documents related to properties allegedly belonging to Mr. Naik were found in the flat of Mr. Pasha during the search on March 16, the ACB prepared a source report, registered an FIR, and obtained search warrant against Mr. Naik on March 16. The ACB on March 17 conducted searches on the premises belonging to Mr. Naik, who also owned a flat in the same apartment complex in which Mr. Pasha owned a flat.
No source information
On perusing the source information report prepared on Mr. Naik assets, the court found that ACB was not even aware of when Mr. Naik joined the service, the total number of years he had put in service, his native place, the income and liabilities of Mr. Naik and his dependents, and the annual property report submitted by the officer with his employer.
Pointing out that many columns in the source information report were left blank, the court found that even the important column for mentioning approximate percentage of disproportionate was left blank. The check period, which is the most important ingredient of a source information report, was left vague by merely stating ‘from the date of joining service to till date,’ the court noted.
Noticing that the ACB’s norm required preparation of source information report by a police inspector and such a report has to be vetted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police prior to registration of crime, the court found these procedures were thrown to the wind in the case of the petitioner.
“The entire proceedings instituted by the ACB against the petitioner cannot but be termed a mockery of the procedure,” the court said.
“An allegation of criminal misconduct on a public servant is a 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 court observed, while pointing out that ACB’s source information report lacked even prima facie conclusion to show possession assets is disproportionate to Mr. Naik’s known sources of income.
“It is a fit case where the court cannot turn a blind eye to the plea of petitioner and obliterate registration of crime against him, failing which, it would become a classic illustration of a case becoming an abuse of process of law and resulting in miscarriage of justice and above all, putting a premium on the action of the ACB, notwithstanding the fact that the ACB blissfully ignored the ABC of procedure,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
The discovery of certain material allegedly belonging to the petitioner could at best have triggered the conduct of a preliminary enquiry and could not have become the basis for registration of an FIR, the court said.
