VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

880 DECISION - 479
report referred to under sec. 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent
with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard
and nothing beyond that. Of course, at that stage the accused may
be examined but that is a prerogative of the court only. In the present
case the High Court in quashing the proceedings not only looked
into the documents filed by the respondent in support of his claim
that no case was made out against him even before the trial had
commenced but relied upon them to conclude that no offence was
committed by him. This approach of the High Court is also contrary
to the settled law of the land.
Supreme Court further held that the sanctioning authority is
not obliged to grant an opportunity of giving an explanation and hearing
to the accused.
(479)
Disproportionate Assets — fresh FIR covering period
investigated earlier
There is no bar for registering fresh FIR and
investigating an offence of disproportionate assets
for the period 1-8-78 to 25-7-95 merely because
the period 1-8-78 to 24-8-89 was earlier investigated
and case closed.
M. Krishna vs. State of Karnataka,
1999 Cri.L.J. SC 2583
The appellant is a Class-I Officer in Karnataka Administrative
Service. A case was registered against him on 24-8-89 under sec.
13(1)(e) read with sec. 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 in respect of the period
1-8-78 to 24-8-89 and after investigation, ‘B’ report was submitted
and properties of the appellant which have been earlier attached were
directed to be released. Subsequently a fresh case was registered
covering the period 1-8-78 to 25-7-95.
The Supreme Court observed that there is no provision in