STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P V PAVITHRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad has filed this criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the Order dated 29-7-88 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crime No. 7 ACB/ Cr. 11/84 dated 8-3-1984 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB AND SPE quashing the First Information Report in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) A few facts relevant to decide this case may be stated:- The respondent was selected to the Indian Police Service in the year 1953 and he worked in various capacities at different places. While he was working as Commissioner of Weights and Measures, Government of Andhra Pradesh, on a report dated 3-7-1984 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, a case was registered against him on 8-3-1984 in Crime No. 7/ AC13/Cr.11/84 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegations that while functioning as Commissioner of Police and later as Vice-Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board during the years 1978-82, he indulged in corrupt practices and acquired immovable assets either in his name or in the name of his wife. The Anti-Corruption Bureau after completing his investigation submitted its report on 22-4-1987 to its Director-General who in turn sent the same to the Government on 17-9-1987. The Government accorded the necessary sanction for prosecution in G.O. Ms. Nos. 525 and 526 dated 16-9-1988. In the meantime, the respondent filed the criminal petition for quashing further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, inter alia, contending that there had been lull in the investigation for fairly long spell causing inordinate delay and that the prosecution had not filed its report contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C. till he filed the petition for quashing the proceedings in November 1987 though the case was registered even in March 1984.

(3.) The plea of the respondent was stoutly resisted by the appellant stating that the delay was occasioned on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent and the case was a complicated and time-consuming one.