The Supreme Court on Friday held that a preliminary enquiry (PE) is not mandatory in every corruption case against public servant, for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a first information report (FIR) in such cases (Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi)
A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B V Nagarathna held that the need for a PE will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and an FIR will not be vitiated simply because a PE was not conducted, reports Bar and Bench.
“The precedents of this Court and the provisions of the CBI Manual make it abundantly clear that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari holds that if the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence at the outset, no preliminary enquiry would be required,” the Court said.
The judgment was delivered in an appeal from an order of the Telangana High Court which had quashed an FIR on the ground that it was based on information from “known sources of income” that were not subject to PE by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before registration.
The FIR was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code against a Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent) for possessing assets disproportionate to her known sources of income to the tune of ? 1,10,81,692 which was 22.86 per cent of the income earned during the check period.
While discussing whether PE was mandatory before registering an FIR, the Court found the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP to be the most authoritative pronouncement of law wherein it was held that a PE was not necessary when the information received disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence.
“The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case,” the Court said.
The Bench also dealt with the judgment in The State of Telangana v. Managipet in which the issue of disproportionate assets was specifically dealt with and it was found that where relevant information regarding prima facie allegations disclosing a cognisable offence was available, the FIR could proceed without a PE.
“These decisions do not mandate that a Preliminary Enquiry must be conducted before the registration of an FIR in corruption cases. An FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary Enquiry has not been conducted,” the top court ruled.
Additionally, the Court considered the provisions enumerated in the CBI Manual which also made it clear that a PE was not mandatory in all cases that involved allegations of corruption.
Further analysing the law laid down in Lalita Kumari, the Court found that the CBI Manual makes PE mandatory only if the information does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the PE must stop when the officer ascertains that enough material has been collected which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
“Hence, we hold that in case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a “source information” under Chapter 8, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence,” the Bench held.
In light of these considerations, the Court observed that the High Court’s reasons for examining the merits of the case while quashing the FIR were specious, particularly since this Court had established that PE was not mandatory.
Therefore, the judgment of the Telangana High Court was set aside and the CBI was allowed to continue its investigation based on the FIR.
