Central Bureau of Investigation (CB) And Anr. Vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (Supreme Court of India);
Central Bureau of Investigation (Appellant) filed an appeal impugning a judgment Order dated February 11, 2020 passed by the Honorable High Court of Telangana (Telangana HC) by which a Writ Petition by Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (Respondent) was allowed and a First Information Report (FIR), against the Respondent, dated September 20, 2017 was set aside.
The FIR had been registered against the Respondent for being in possession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. The FIR has thus been registered for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The Telangana HC quashed the FIR on the basis that the Appellant didn’t conduct a Preliminary Enquiry under the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2005 before the registration of the said FIR.
In the case, the Appellant contended that CBI Manual does not make it mandatory to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) before the registration of the FIR. It was stated that a PE cannot be made mandatory for all cases of corruption and is only conducted when the information received is not sufficient to register a regular case.
After taking perusal of all the facts and evidences of the case, the Honorable Supreme Court of India held that if CBI chooses not to hold a PE, the Respondent cannot demand it as a matter of right and therefore, revived the FIR against the Respondent which was erstwhile quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
A The Appeal
1 The appeal arises from a judgment dated 11 February 2020 of a Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana, by which: (I) a writ petition1 filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was allowed; and (II) the First Information Report2 dated 20 September 2017 registered against the respondents was set aside, together with proceedings taken up pursuant to the FIR.
2 The first respondent is a Commissioner of Income Tax while the second respondent is her spouse. The second respondent is a Member of the Legislative Assembly3 and is a Minister in the State government of Andhra Pradesh. The FIR4 dated 20 September 2017 has been registered against the first respondent for being in possession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. The second respondent is alleged to have abetted the offence. The FIR has thus been registered for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 19885 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code 18606. The allegation is of possession of Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs 1,10,81,692, which was 22.86 per cent of the income earned during the check period between 1 April 2010 to 29 February 2016.
3 While quashing the FIR, the High Court held that: (I) the information about the respondents’ income can be ascertained from their ‘known sources of income’ under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, such as their Income Tax Returns, information submitted to their department under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 19647 and affidavit filed under the Representation of the People Act 19518 and the Rules under it; (ii) to counter the veracity of the information from these sources, the appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation9, should have conducted a Preliminary Enquiry under the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual 200510 before registration of the FIR; and (iii) on the basis of the information ascertained from these ‘known sources of income’, the allegations against the respondents in the FIR prima facie seem unsustainable. This view of the High Court has been called into question in these proceedings.
B Factual and procedural history
4 Since 1992, the first respondent is a Civil Servant of the Indian Revenue Services11, and was working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit -II), Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry when the FIR was registered against her. She is presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit) at Hyderabad. The second respondent is the spouse of the first respondent, and was also a Civil Servant working in the Indian Railway Accounts Services till 2009. At the time of the registration of the FIR, he was and continues to be, at present, an MLA of the State of Andhra Pradesh and holds the post of the Minister of Education for the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was also a Member of the Committees on Assurances, SC&ST Welfare and Public Accounts.
5 The FIR was registered against the respondents by CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch12 in Chennai on 20 September 2017. The FIR noted that the “check period” was between 1 April 2010 and 29 February 2016. The FIR records that it was registered on the basis of “source information” received by the CBI ACB Chennai on the same date, at about 4 pm. There are four tabulated statements in the FIR. Statement A provides that the respondents’ assets at the beginning of the check period (1 April 2010) were in the amount of Rs 1,35,26,066 while Statement-B indicates that their assets at the end of the check period (29 February 2016) were Rs 6,90,51,066. Hence, their assets earned during the check period (i.e., between 1 April 2010 to 29 February 2016) were alleged to be to the tune of Rs 5,55,25,000. According to Statement-C, the respondents’ income during the check period was Rs 4,84,76,630 while according to Statement-D their expenditure during the check period was Rs 40,33,322. Hence, the respondents are alleged to have acquired assets/pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs 5,95,58,322 (adding the Assets, Rs 5,55,25,000 and Expenditure, Rs 40,33,322) against an Income of Rs 4,84,76,630 earned during the check period. Therefore, their Disproportionate Assets13 during the check period were computed at Rs 1,10,81,692, which is 22.86 per cent of the total income earned by them. The computation reflected in the FIR is as follows:
“Calculation of Disproportionate Assets:-
