CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. K. DHANALAKSHMI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The challenge by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the present appeal is against an order of the High Court of Delhi dated 20th April, 2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.5389 of 2014 by which the proceedings against the respondent under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been quashed.
(3.) The aforesaid order of the High Court was at a stage when the investigation was on and charge-sheet was yet to be filed. The First Information Report (FIR) in question was jointly filed against the respondent herein and her mother Smt. M. Parvathamma for commission of the aforesaid offences and against Smt. M. Parvathamma for commission of the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1894 (IPC). It transpires that in the course of the investigation the Investigating Authority decided to close the case against the mother of the respondent herein as in its view it was not possible, on the materials collected, to show that the assets in the name of the mother of the respondent were acquired from the illegal income of the respondent. At the same time, the Investigating Authority decided to segregate the case of the respondent from that of her mother and had approached the Sanctioning Authority for grant of sanction to prosecute the respondent on the basis of such materials that it had come to light in the course of the investigation showing that the respondent independently had acquired assets which were disproportionate to the known sources of her income. This is evident from the affidavit filed by the CBI before the High Court in December, 2014. The above position is crystal clear from para 3 of a later affidavit filed by the CBI before the High Court on 26th February, 2015 in the case of the mother of the respondent, Smt. M. Parvathamma. The High Court took note of the contents of paragraph 2 of the said affidavit dated 26th February, 2015 and after extracting the same chose to ignore what was stated in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit. For the purposes of clarity it may be stated that in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid affidavit dated 26th February, 2015 the CBI had stated that the case against the mother under Section 109 IPC, on the materials collected till date, is not made out. However, in paragraph 3 it was stated that on the said materials collected the CBI is of the opinion that "the allegations of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income against Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi are substantiated and the respondent has already processed, even before the filing of this petition, for the sanction for prosecution from the competent authority.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.