Preliminary enquiry not mandatory before authorising investigation into disproportionate-assets offence, Karnataka High Court rules

The petitioner, an accused in Crime No. 30/2024, registered for offences under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the FIR.

He contended that the Superintendent of Police had permitted registration and investigation without a preliminary enquiry.

The Lokayukta responded that Section 17 of the Act did not require a preliminary enquiry before the Superintendent of Police authorised investigation into an offence under Section 13(1)(b).

The Court noted that the case originated from a source report and that, on 18 July 2024, the Superintendent of Police authorised a Police Inspector to investigate, recording the Inspector’s experience and suitability.

Whether Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires a preliminary enquiry before the Superintendent of Police authorises investigation into an offence under Section 13(1)(b)

Whether the FIR should be quashed because the investigation was authorised without such a preliminary enquiry

Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act governs who may investigate offences under the Act; its second proviso requires an order from a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police for investigation of an offence under Section 13(1)(b).

The Court held that Section 17 does not prescribe a preliminary enquiry as a condition precedent to that authorisation; a preliminary enquiry is a rule of prudence, not a statutory requirement.

The Court distinguished this from the sanction requirement under Section 19.

In investigating disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(b), the officer must examine whether the public servant intentionally enriched himself by illicit means and consider the explanation offered for the assets.

The Superintendent of Police had authorised the Police Inspector to investigate, satisfying the relevant authorisation requirement under Section 17; the provision did not additionally require a preliminary enquiry before that order could be made.

The Court considered that investigation would allow the petitioner to explain the sources of the assets alleged to have been acquired by illicit means, and that the investigating officer was required to take the explanation into account before submitting a report.

The asserted absence of a preliminary enquiry therefore did not justify quashing the FIR.

It dismissed the petition, while reserving the petitioner’s liberty to challenge an adverse report in accordance with law.