IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.50 of 2010 Date of decision : November 25, 2010 Sanjay Gupta …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : M/s Rajiv Jiwan and Varun Chandel, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing FIR No.26 of 2009 (dated 1st August, 2009) registered, under Sections 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Petitioner had been arrested on 9th July, 2009, in a case, under Section 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered by Police Station, Anti-Corruption Zone, Solan, when he was caught with a sum of `2,00,000/-, which he had allegedly demanded and accepted as bribe. 3. Petitioner is an IAS Officer. After the arrest, police searched the premises of the petitioner and recovered documents, showing that he had investigated Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… huge amount of money in the banks and also had large amount of money in 16 Bank Accounts, at various places. Also, it was found that he had investigated lacs of rupees, in purchasing immoveable assets, including a showroom at Panchkula, a flat at Parwanoo, a plot at Ludhiana and membership of various House Building Co-operative Societies. 4. On coming to know that the petitioner had assets, worth crores of rupees, both moveable and immoveable, a communication was addressed by DGP to SP SV & ACB SR, Shimla, with endorsement to Additional SP PS SV & ACB, Shimla, for calling upon the petitioner to account for the assets, detail of which was given in that letter. On receipt of the said communication, Additional SP PS SV & ACB, Shimla, registered a case against the petitioner, vide FIR No.26 of 2009, dated 1st August, 2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR simply records the contents of the letter, received by Additional SP PS SV & ACB and that there is no mention in the FIR that any opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner to account for the assets, as detailed in the communication received from the DGP or that the assets were in excess of the known sources of income of the petitioner. According to him, when there is no mention in the FIR that the assets were in excess of known sources of income of the petitioner, an offence of possessing assets, beyond the known sources of income, can not be said to …3… have been committed and, therefore, FIR is liable to be quashed. 6. It is true that there is no reference in the FIR that the petitioner had not accounted for the assets, detailed in the FIR or that the said assets were in excess of the known sources of his income and, therefore, technically no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner and the FIR ought not to have been registered, before making enquiry and affording an opportunity to the petitioner to account for the assets, but this, by itself, may not constitute a ground for quashing the FIR as such. 7. However, since the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence, the petition is disposed of with the order that until, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to account for the assets, and making enquiry, the police has reason to believe that the assets are beyond the known sources of income of the petitioner, no further action in the case, registered vide FIR No.26 of 2009, shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though a communication was issued to the petitioner, before registration of the case, calling upon him to account for the assets, he was not supplied copies of the documents seized from his house, during the raid, after his arrest, in case FIR No.10 of 2009, despite his having asked for the same, in writing, through letter dated 14th July, 2009, copy Annexure P-2. It is directed that copies of all the relevant …4… documents, seized from the premises of the petitioner, during the course of search of his premises, in case FIR No.10 of 2009, shall be supplied to him, when calling upon him to account for the assets. Petition stands disposed of. November 25, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J