PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY NOT MANDATORY IN ALL CORRUPTION CASES - Synopsis
RISHABH SACHDEVA 8 Jan 2020

STATE OF TELENGANA VS SRI MANAGIPET @MANAGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NUMBER:- 1662 OF 2019

FIR was registered against the accused on the basis of the statement given by Chaudhary Sudhakar(Deputy Superintendant of Police) that during the period of his service he bought six multi-story buildings, one multi-story commercial complex, 27 plots and 26 acres of land in the districts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Mahboobnagar and one Scorpio car, one Hyundai Verna car and one Maruti car, all worth Rs.3,55,61,500/. The Accused Officer's probable and his family members probable income  would be Rs.60,00,000/-from all their documented sources of income if measured roughly. The accused officer's likely expenditure, including household expenditure and children's education expenditure, is tentatively estimated at Rs.23,00,000/-. The accused officer's likely savings are Rs.37,00,000/- i.e., the likely income of Rs. 60,00,000-minus Rs.23,00,000/-'s likely expenditure. 

The accused officer has accumulated assets worth approximately Rs.3,55,61,500/- compared to the estimated savings of Rs.37,00,000/-  and thereby committed the offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act 1988. On 9 October 2017, when the inquiries were finished, a charge sheet was filed. As many as 114 witnesses have been investigated during the investigations. The investigations were conducted by Sudhakar, DSP, Hyderabad and five other investigating officers and the final report was prepared.

In a petition to quash the charge sheet, the High Court held that there was no authority to report the crime and that the informant could not be the investigating officer and therefore quashed the same thing. The State is aggrieved against the said two findings whereas, the Accused Officer has challenged the findings of the High Court not accepting the grounds pressed by him in seeking the quashing of the charge sheet. thus the appeal is filed in Supreme Court by both the parties.

COURT OBSERVATION

The Court concluded that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses a cognizable offense and in such a situation no preliminary inquiry is permitted. In this case, the FIR itself shows that the collected information relates to the Accused Officer's disproportionate assets.  The Supreme Court observed that in all cases of corruption, a preliminary inquiry before the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) is not required


×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com