STATE. BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE vs. H SRINIVAS

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   C RIMINAL  A PPEAL  N O .775/2018   (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5391 of 2017) State by Lokayuktha Police        …Petitioner (s) Versus H. Srinivas    …Respondent (s) W ITH RIMINAL PPEALS OS   C  A  N .776­779/2018   (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5606­5609 of 2017)   J U D G M E N T     N. V. R AMANA ., J.   1. Leave granted. These appeals are filed against the common order passed by 2. the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in Writ Petition Signature Not Verified No   (s).   21782,   38450,   38451   and   38498   of   2014,   and Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.05.18 16:07:42 IST Reason: Criminal Petition No. 7166 of 2015, wherein the High Court 1 has quashed the proceedings instituted against the accused respondents. 3. There are two separate and distinct crimes alleged to have been committed by the different individuals. Therefore, we would like to note both set of facts so as to understand the issue at hand. 4. The   first   set   of   facts   pertain   to   Crime   No.   103/2013 registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ PC Act ] against one H. Srinivas (respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 5391/2017). On 25.10.2013,   Police   Inspector,   Karnataka   Lokayuktha, Davanagere Division, submitted a Source Report against the Respondent/accused,   who   was   working   as   Assistant Engineer, Jagaluru Pattana Panchayat, Davangere District, for   having   acquired   disproportionate   assets   against   his known source of income. It may be relevant to extract a part of the source report as under­ It is hereby stated that AE Sri. H. Srinivasa, Assistant   Engineer,   Town   Panchayath, Jagaluru   has   earned   only   Rs.   17,25,000 from known source and his disproportionate asset is Rs. 24,54,300­00 and the Percentage of   Disproportionate   asset   is   142.27%. 2 Presently   AE   residing   at   Jagaluru   Town, J.C.R. Extension in the first floor of Khasim Miyya’s   (owner   of   Grocery)   house.   This source report is submitted in order to file out more details about additional property details,   gold,   silver,   and   lockers   in   the person’s house, (2) and Assistant Engineer office, Town Panchayath, Jagaluru and (3) Smt. Gowramma’s sister Smt. Umadevi’s house at J.C.R. Extension . ( ) emphasis supplied It is said that the aforesaid report was prepared basing on a secret   information,   received   from   an   informant.   The Superintendent of Police endorsed taking action against the respondent   under   Section   13(1)(e),   13(2)   of   PC   Act. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha,   Davanagere   registered   Crime   No.   103/2013 u/Sec.   13(1)(e)   r/w.   Section   13(2)   of   the   PC   Act,   dated 29.10.2013, against the Respondent herein. In the column No. 3(d) of the FIR, General Diary reference entry No and time is noted as  ’. The State herein has not ’04 11:30 AM disputed the fact that there was no entry in the General Diary, during the conduction of the preliminary enquiry. It may not be out of context to note that after completion of the investigation, a Final Report was prepared and filed 3 before the appropriate court. Aggrieved by the manner in which   the   police   have   conducted   the   investigation,   the respondent herein, filed a Criminal Petition No. 7166 of 2015, before the Karnataka High Court. The   second   set   of   facts   reveals   that   on   21.07.2011,   the 5. Karnataka   Lokayuktha   Police,   basing   on   a   confidential information about amassing of the disproportionate assets by one C. Mrutyunjayaswamy (respondent in  SLP (Crl.) No. 5606/2017 ), who was working as Secretary to Government, PWD, Vikas Saudha, Bengaluru, prepared a Source Report recommending investigation into the assets of the aforesaid accused. Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, City   Division,   Bengaluru   by   Order   No. LOK/INV(G)SP/CITY/01/2011,   dated  21/07/2011   ordered his deputy to register a FIR. On the same date, a FIR being Crime   No.   28/2011   was   registered   accordingly.   On   22­ 23.07.2011,   the   investigating   team   searched   the   office, residence, bank lockers and other places of the contesting respondents   in  this  appeal  [ arising  out  of   SLP  (Crl.)   No. 5606­09/2017 ]. On 07.05.2013, final Report was prepared 4 after   completion   of   the   investigation,   wherein disproportionate assets were observed. Being aggrieved C. Mruthyunjayaswamy filed a Writ Petition No. 21782 of 2014, before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking quashing of the preliminary investigation report dated 21.07.2011 submitted by the Police Inspector of Lokayuktha and consequently the FIR dated 21.07.2011 filed by the deputy Superintendent of Police,   Karnataka   Lokayuktha   Police   in   Crime   No.   28   of 2011 and all the subsequent proceedings on the file of the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Special Judge, Bangalore (CCH No. 23). Dr. H.M. Hema (wife of C. Mrutyunjayaswamy) filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 38450 of 2014, seeking   inter alia   quashing   of   the   seizure   proceedings   in   respect   of passbooks and also freezing of the accounts etc. One Smt. Sowbagyamma   (mother­in­law   of   C.   Mrutyunjayaswamy) filed W.P. No. 38451 of 2014 seeking  inter alia  quashing of the seizure proceedings in respect of passbooks and against freezing   of   certain   bank   accounts.   One   H.M.   Prabhu (brother­in­law   of   C.   Mrutyunjayaswamy)   filed   W.P.   No. 38498 of 2014 seeking   inter alia   quashing of the seizure proceedings.  5 The   main   contention   raised   by   the   respondents   herein, 6. before the  High Court as  well as this  Court, is that  the preliminary enquiry and the consequent Source Report filed by the Officer were done without entering the same in the General Diary, which according to them was mandatory and non­compliance of the same resulted in vitiating the entire proceeding. 7. The High Court clubbed all the cases as discussed above and framed common questions of law, which are­ a. Whether there could be a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Police as to whether a cognizable offence had been committed, even in the absence of a complaint, or even prior to the registration of an FIR? b. Whether Complainant could also act as the investigating Officer? c. Whether an illegal search and seizure would be fatal to the case of the prosecution? By the impugned order the High Court quashed the FIR on 8. the main grounds as under­ i. That the preliminary report conducted by the police was   done   without   any   entries   made   in   the   Station Diary­ as to the conduction of the preliminary enquiry. ii. Reliance was placed on the  Case of Lalitha Kumari, (2014) 2 SCC 1, paragraph 120.7 and 120.8, to come to 6 a conclusion that it is mandatory to make entries in the Station Diary and failure of the same would be fatal for the prosecution. iii. That   any   proceedings   conducted   after   such   alleged illegality would be rendered  non­est  in the eyes of law and consequently are liable to be quashed accordingly. 9. Aggrieved   by   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court,   which prematurely   terminated   the   proceedings   at   the   threshold without allowing a full­fledged trial, the State of Karnataka and other authorities are in appeal before this Court. 10. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the State has contended that­ i. That   the   impugned   order   is   completely   cryptic   and without reasoning. ii. That the conclusion reached in Para 120.8 of  Lalitha Kumari Case   (Supra), needs to be read in context of earlier discussion, wherein it is clear that for lodging an   FIR,   entry   in   the   General   Diary   is   not   a   pre­ condition. iii. Defect/irregularity   in   investigation   cannot   result   in quashing of the proceedings. iv. That the Lodging of the FIR is not a precondition for initiation of criminal proceedings. v. He   has   placed   reliance   on   catena   of   judgments, wherein   this   Court   has   stamped   its   approval   for 7 conduction of such preliminary enquiry in corruption cases, for safeguarding the interest of the government servants from unwarranted prosecutions.  vi. The consideration provided by the High Court in the Criminal   Petition   No.   7166   of   2015   (concerning   the case of H. Srinivas) is highly insufficient and would clearly reflect non­application of mind. On the other hand, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior 11. counsel appearing on behalf of  respondent  ( H. Srinivas ), has   drawn   our   attention   to   the   fact   that   the   Lalitha Kumari   Case   (Supra),   was   a   declaratory   judgment.   This Court has time and again emphasised the significance of Station   Diary   entry   for   conduction   of   the   preliminary enquiry   thereby   requiring   the   strict   adherence   to   the conclusions reached in the   Lalitha Kumari Case   (Supra). He argued that in the present case, the illegality goes to the root of the matter thereby mandating the quashing of the FIR on a pure question of law. We may note that the other respondents have not advanced any arguments concerning the third issue. 12. Heard   the   arguments   advanced   by   the   learned   counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material 8 available on record. At the outset, we are in agreement with the contention of the appellant­State that the consideration provided to the   , is Criminal Petition No. 7166 of 2015 highly   insufficient,   which   in   other   cases   may   have   itself mandated a remand for non­application of facts. We refrain from taking such an approach, as lot of time has already been   wasted   in   unnecessary   litigation   and   therefore,   we deem it appropriate that we put a quietus this issue herein without   remanding   the   aforesaid   case   back   to   the   High Court for proper consideration. 13. As both sides have placed excessive reliance on the case of   (Supra), it would be appropriate for Lalitha Kumari Case us to discuss certain nuances of this case in detail. This Court   therein,   having   noticed   certain   contradictory judgments concerning the interpretation of Section 154 of CrPC, referred the matter to a larger Bench for providing a mechanism under the criminal justice system imbued with due process. 14. In   the   aforesaid   case,   this   Court   while   repelling   the contention by the learned ASG appearing for the State of 9 Chhattisgarh that recording of the first information under Section 154 in the “book” is subsequent to the entry in the General Diary, held that the concept of General Diary does not flow from the Section 154 of CrPC, 1973 and the same conclusion would be apparent from the departure made in the   present   Section   154   of   CrPC   when   compared   with Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861. It may be relevant to extract some paragraphs, which may have bearing on the case concerned­ 64.  The   General   Diary   is   a   record   of   all important   transactions/events   taking   place in a police station, including departure and arrival of police staff, handing over or taking over of charge, arrest of a person, details of law and order duties, visit of senior officers, etc.   It   is   in   this   context   that   gist   or substance of each FIR being registered in the police   station   is   also   mentioned   in   the General Diary since registration of FIR also happens to be a very important event in the police   station.   Since   General   Diary   is   a record that is maintained chronologically on day­to­day basis (on each day, starting with new   number   1),   the   General   Diary   entry reference is also mentioned simultaneously in   the   FIR   book,   while   FIR   number   is mentioned in the General Diary entry since both of these are prepared simultaneously. 10 65.  It is relevant to point out that FIR book is maintained with its number given on an annual basis. This means that each FIR has a unique annual number given to it. This is on similar lines as the case numbers given in courts. Due to this reason, it is possible to keep   a   strict   control   and   track   over   the registration of FIRs by the supervisory police officers   and   by   the   courts,   wherever necessary. Copy of each FIR is sent to the superior   officers   and   to   the   Judicial Magistrate concerned. 66.  On   the   other   hand,   General   Diary contains a huge number of other details of the proceedings of each day. Copy of General Diary is not sent to the Judicial Magistrate having   jurisdiction   over   the   police   station, though its copy is sent to a superior police officer. Thus, it is not possible to keep strict control of each and every FIR recorded in the General Diary by the superior police officers and/or   the   court   in   view   of   enormous amount   of   other   details   mentioned   therein and the numbers changing every day. 67.  The   signature   of   the   complainant   is obtained in the FIR book as and when the complaint is given to the police station. On the other hand, there is no such requirement of obtaining signature of the complainant in the General Diary. Moreover, at times, the complaint given may consist of large number of pages, in which case it is only the gist of the complaint which is to be recorded in the General   Diary   and   not   the   full   complaint. This does not fit in with the suggestion that what is recorded in the General Diary should be   considered   to   be   the fulfilment/compliance with the requirement 11 of Section 154 of registration of FIR. In fact, the usual practice is to record the complete complaint in the FIR book (or annex it with the FIR form) but record only about one or two paragraphs (gist of the information) in the General Diary. … 70.  If at all, there is any inconsistency in the provisions of Section 154 of the Code and Section   44   of   the   Police   Act,   1861,   with regard to the fact as to whether the FIR is to be   registered   in   the   FIR   book   or   in   the General Diary, the provisions of Section 154 of the Code will prevail and the provisions of Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 (or similar provisions   of   the   respective   corresponding Police Act or Rules in other respective States) shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy. Thus,   FIR   is   to   be   recorded   in   the   FIR book, as mandated under Section 154 of the Code, and it is not correct to state that information will be first recorded in the   General   Diary   and   only   after preliminary   inquiry,   if   required,   the information will be registered as FIR. (Emphasis supplied) 15. On the aspect of the preliminary enquiry the court discussed as under­ 115.  Although,   we,   in   unequivocal   terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates 12 the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One   such   instance   is   in   the   case   of allegations relating to medical negligence on the   part   of   doctors.   It   will   be   unfair   and inequitable   to   prosecute   a   medical professional   only   on   the   basis   of   the allegations in the complaint. …   117.   In the context of offences relating to   corruption, this Court in      P. Sirajuddin    [  P.  v.      ,   (1970)   1   Sirajuddin     State   of   Madras   SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants . ( Emphasis supplied ) 16. Thereafter this  Court concluded in the following manner­ Conclusion/Directions 120.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: … 13

14 case   it   should   not   exceed   7   days.   The fact of such delay and the causes of it must  be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since   the   General   Diary/Station Diary/Daily   Diary   is   the   record   of   all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration   of   FIR   or   leading   to   an inquiry,   must   be   mandatorily   and meticulously reflected in the said diary and   the   decision   to   conduct   a preliminary   inquiry   must   also   be reflected, as mentioned above. ( Emphasis supplied ) 17. In light of the discussion above, the absence of entries in the General Diary concerning the preliminary enquiry would not be   per se   illegal. Our attention is not  drawn to any bar under any provision of CrPC barring investigating authority to investigate into matter, which may for some justifiable ground, not found to have been entered in the General Diary right after receiving the Confidential Information. It may not be   out   of   context   to   mention   that   nothing   found   in   the paragraph   120.8   of   the   Lalitha   Kumari   Case   (Supra), justifies   the   conclusion   reached   by   the   High   Court   by 15 placing   a   skewed   and   literal   reading   of   the   conclusions reached   by   the   Bench   therein.   It   is   well   settled   that judgments are not legislations, they have to be read in the context and background discussions [ refer  Smt. Kesar Devi v. Union of India & Ors. ,  (2003) 7 SCC 427] .  18. As the concept of maintaining General Diary has its origin under the Section 44 of Police Act of 1861 as applicable to States, which makes it an obligation for the concerned Police Officer   to   maintain   a   General   Diary,   but   such   non­ maintenance   per   se   may   not   be   rendering   the   whole prosecution   illegal.   However,   on   the   other   hand,   we   are aware   of   the   fact  that  such   non­maintenance   of   General Diary may have consequences on the merits of the case, which is a matter of trial. Moreover, we are also aware of the fact that the explanation of the genesis of a criminal case, in some   cases,   plays   an   important   role   in   establishing   the prosecution’s   case.   With   this   background   discussion   we must observe that the binding conclusions reached in the paragraph 120.8   of   Lalitha Kumari Case   (Supra) is an   for the concerned officer to record obligation of best efforts 16 all   events   concerning   an   enquiry.   If   the   Officer   has   not recorded, then it is for the trial court to weigh the effect of the same for reasons provided therein. A court under a writ jurisdiction or under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is ill equipped to answer such questions of facts. The treatment provided by the High Court in converting a mixed question of law and fact concerning the merits of the case, into a pure question of law may not be proper in light of settled jurisprudence.  19. Our conclusion herein is strengthened by the fact that CrPC itself has differentiated between irregularity and illegality. The obligation of maintenance of General Diary is part of course of conduct of the concerned officer, which may not itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some grave prejudice going to the root of matter is shown to exist 1 at   the   time   of   the   trial.   Conspicuous   absence   of   any provision under CrPC concerning the omissions and errors during   investigation   also   bolsters   the   conclusion   reached 2 herein. 1 Union of India and Ors. v. T. Nathamuni , (2014) 16 SCC 285 2   Niranjan Singh and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh ,  AIR 1957 SC 142. 17 20. Moreover, the requirement of the preliminary enquiry is well established   by   judicial   precedents   as   a   check   on mushrooming false prosecution against public servants by persons who misuse the process of law for their personal vengeance. Such preliminary check would be beneficial and has been continuously approved by catena of judgments of this Court. [ refer to  P. Sirajuddin Case , (1970) 1 SCC 595,   (Supra)]. In light of the discussion, Lalitha Kumari Case we cannot sustain the reasoning provided by the High Court on this aspect. 21. Therefore, we allow these appeals and, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court. Before we part it may be noted that we have not expressed any views on merits of the case and the trial court is to proceed expeditiously uninfluenced by any observations made herein.        …………......................J. (N.V. RAMANA)    ..................................J.              (S. ABDUL NAZEER) NEW DELHI, MAY 18, 2018. 18