Kirpal, J. - (1.) These are appeals by special leave granted against the judgment of a single judge of Bombay High Court in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 which were pending against the respondent herein before the Special Judge at Greater Bombay, were quashed.
(2.) The respondent had joined the police force as a. P.S.I. Cadet on 1-6-1996 and after completion of his training, he was posted as police Sub-Inspector in the police force in 1968. He was promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in September, 1974 and in August, 1981, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police. It was the case of the respondent that he had various important assignments and that his record was unblemished.
(3.) It appears that one A. C. P. R. B. Kolekar of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bombay on 1-1-1987 made enquiries with regard to the respondent who was, at that time, holding that post of Vigilance Officer in the office of the Transport Commissioner. Bombay. A First Information Report was recorded by A.C.P. Kolekar on 16-2-1988 and the case was registered vide C. R.No. 4/88 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter vide a letter dated 8-6-1988. respondent was informed that the Bureau was investigating an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the Act and the case had been registered on 16-2-1988 for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. As Section 5(10) (e) of the Act envisaged that the public servant should satisfactorily account for the pecuniary resources and property standing in his name or in the name of others the respondent was, by the said letter dated 8-6-1988, required to attend the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau on 20-6-1988 for the purpose of giving a satisfactorily explanation in respect of properties valued at Rs. 15.00,764.06/- which were found to be in his possession or in the names of others on his behalf. By his reply dated 20-6-1988, the respondent wrote back saying that as the Anti Corruption Bureau had registered a complaint against him, he was protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, he could not be compelled to make statement which may prejudice his case. The respondent, accordingly, stated that he will not say anything regarding the queries put to him.;