SUPREME COURT & HIGHCOURT Rulings on POLICE

FactsHeldI.2 : SECOND F.I.R.M. Krishna vs State of Karnataka*The appellant was a Class I officer in the Karnataka Administrative Service. At theinstance of the police, an FIR lodged against him under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of check period of 1-8-1978 to 24-8-1989alleging that he had assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. TheInvestigating Officer submitted a '8' Report before the Special Judge, who after issuinga public notice inviting objections, accepted the report. On 25-7-1995 another FIR wasfield at the instance of the police against the appellant in respect of the period 1-8-1978to 25-7-1995 under the same provisions and making similar allegations. The appellantfiled a petition under Section 482, CrPC before the Kamataka High Court seekingquashing of the second FIR on the ground that in view of the result of the earlierinvestigation the inclusion of the same check period in the second FIR was not proper.However, the High Court refused relief and observed that the second FIR contained aset of fresh allegations in respect of fresh alleged assets during a fresh check period. .There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Prevention of CorruptionAct to sustain the appellant's contention that the present FIR itself is bad in law. There isno provision in the CrPC which debars the filing of an FIR and investigation into thealleged offences merely because for an earlier period, namely, 1-8-1978 to 24-8-1-989,there was an FIR which was duly investigated into the culminated in a 'B' Form Reportwhich was accepted by a competent court. At the same time, it has to be held that theconclusion of the High Court that the present proceeding relates to fresh alleged assetsand a fresh check period is not wholly correct. Though the earlier period also could be asubject-matter of investigation for a variety of reasons like some assets not being takeninto account or some materials brought during investigation not being taken intoaccount, yet at the same time, the results of the earlier' investigation cannot be totallyobliterated and ignored by the investigating agency. But that cannot be a ground forquashing of the FIR itself and for injuncting the investigating authority to investigate intothe offence alleged.The appellant is right in contending that the assets which were valued in the earlierinvestigation proceeding at a particular value cannot be valued higher in the presentproceedings unless any positive ground is there for such revaluation.*(1999) 3 see 2476