Case: K Karunakaran Vs. State Of Kerala

petitions filed against the appellant by the High Court and this Court, the matter pertaining to the purchase of Palmolein deal had not been shelved and was very much alive so far as the State Assembly is concerned. The appellant, when he was the Chief Minister, had declared in the Assembly for probe into the allegations and a Committee on Public Undertakings was seized of the matter. 6. The letter dated 18.6.1996 produced in this Court, for the first time, was not the basis of challenging the First Information Report lodged and the subsequent proceedings conducted against the appellant before the High Court. In the said letter it is stated : "I am to request you to submit enquiry report to Government at the earliest after conducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegations raised in the Legislative Assembly that there is corruption of crores of rupees behind the agreement signed on the 29th November, 1991 for import of 15,000 tones of pamolein to Kerala from Malaysia through the Power and Energy Company, Singapore. Attention is also invited to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relating to the issue. It is also brought to your notice that records related to the matter are available in your office." From the contents of the letter it cannot be inferred that any direction had been issued for registration of a criminal case against the appellant and others. What the Commissioner-Secretary had desired was the conducting of preliminary enquiry which could not be prayed to be shut because as apprehended it could lead to the registration of a case. The FIR indicates that while conducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegations of corruption in the matter of Palmolein directly by the State Government, various details were revealed which showed the commission of offences punishable under various provisions of law. 7. After referring to the earlier judgments in the case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court noted the summary of the first information statement of Shri M. Vijaykumar dated 11.4.1994 and compared it with the FIR (Annexure P-8) dated 21st March, 1997 and rightly concluded : "By an assessment of both the first information statement (Annexure-D) and first information report (Annexure A) it is seen that the present first information report is definitely based on further materials and enquiry. The obvious difference between these two sets of first information statement and first information report are : (i) In the FIR filed by Superindent of Police, Vigilance it is clearly found that there was no real requirement for direct import by the State Government; (ii) The import was far in excess of the requirement in the State for the projected period; (iii) The agreement was made without due sanction from the State Government, and Finance Department without specifying the price; (iv) Import conditions stipulated by the Government of India were violated in reference to price limited, terms of payment and fixation of retail price for distribution through the P.D.S. (v) While fixing the price in terms of USD as against the Indian rupee resulted increase in the value of USD was knownanticipated at the time of agreement resulting in huge loss to the Government; (vi) As against the delay from the agreed period upto February, 1992 the supply till March, 1992 the penal clause for the delay was not invoked. These were the relevant and important specific informationallegation as against the earlier First Information Statement of Shri M. Vijayakumar. According to respondents 2 and 3, the present First Information Report is based on a preliminary enquiry conducted in the matter from 9.8.1996 to March, 1997 during which period they examined 63 documents including 18 documents mentioned earlier in the judgments." 8. After going through the pleadings of the parties and keeping in view the rival submissions made before us, we are of the opinion that the registration of the FIR against the appellant and others cannot be held to be the result of mala fides or actuated by extraneous considerations. The menace of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities. In such matters probes conducted are required to be determined on facts and in accordance with law. The allegations of mala fides were, admittedly, not the basis for challenging the registration of the FIR in the High Court. If during the conduct of a preliminary enquiry the commission of an offence comes to light on the basis of new materials, the respondent-officials were obliged to register a case and present it in a competent Court of jurisdiction for holding of trial and adjudication. The Government order (Annexure R-1) is not shown to have been used against the appellant in any way. The aforesaid order in fact protects the interests of the officials saving them from unnecessary harassment. Mere apprehension of the order being used against some persons is no ground to hold it illegal or unconstitutional particularly when its legality or constitutionality has not been challenged. Prima facie it does not hamper or interfere with the statutory functions of an investigating officer who has, otherwise, statutory rights to hold and complete the investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Our observations with respect to the legality of the Government order are not conclusive regarding its constitutionality but are restricted so far as its applicability to the registration of the FIR against the appellant is concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid Government order has not been shown to be in any way illegal or unconstitutional so far as the rights of the appellant are concerned.9. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that the investigation has since been completed and the final report submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction as permitted by this Court vide its order dated 11.12.1999. In this view of the matter we do not propose to comment on the merits of the case, lest, it may prejudice the parties at the trial.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. After going through the pleadings of the parties and keeping in view the rival submissions made before us, we are of the opinion that the registration of the FIR against the appellant and others cannot be held to be the result of mala fides or actuated by extraneous considerations. The menace of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities. In such matters probes conducted are required to be determined on facts and in accordance with law. The allegations of mala fides were, admittedly, not the basis for challenging the registration of the FIR in the High Court. If during the conduct of a preliminary enquiry the commission of an offence comes to light on the basis of new materials, the respondent-officials were obliged to register a case and present it in a competent Court of jurisdiction for holding of trial and adjudication. The Government order (Annexure R-1) is not shown to have been used against the appellant in any way. The aforesaid order in fact protects the interests of the officials saving them from unnecessary harassment. Mere apprehension of the order being used against some persons is no ground to hold it illegal or unconstitutional particularly when its legality or constitutionality has not been challenged. Prima facie it does not hamper or interfere with the statutory functions of an investigating officer who has, otherwise, statutory rights to hold and complete the investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Our observations with respect to the legality of the Government order are not conclusive regarding its constitutionality but are restricted so far as its applicability to the registration of the FIR against the appellant is concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid Government order has not been shown to be in any way illegal or unconstitutional so far as the rights of the appellant are concerned.9. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that the investigation has since been completed and the final report submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction as permitted by this Court vide its order dated 11.12.1999. In this view of the matter we do not propose to comment on the merits of the case, lest, it may prejudice the parties at the trial.