State. By Lokayukta Police vs H Srinivas

3. There are two separate and distinct crimes alleged to have been committed  by  the different individuals. Therefore, we would like to note both set of facts so as to understand the issue at hand.

4. The   first   set   of   facts   pertain   to   Crime   No.   103/2013 registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] against one H.   Srinivas   (respondent   in   SLP   (Crl.)   No.   5391/2017).   On 25.10.2013,   Police   Inspector,   Karnataka   Lokayuktha, Davanagere Division, submitted a Source Report against the Respondent/accused,   who   was   working   as   Assistant Engineer, Jagaluru Pattana Panchayat, Davangere District, for   having   acquired   disproportionate   assets   against   his known source of income. It may be relevant to extract a part of the source report as under­ It is hereby stated that AE Sri. H. Srinivasa, Assistant   Engineer,   Town   Panchayath, Jagaluru   has   earned   only   Rs.   17,25,000 from known source and his disproportionate asset is Rs. 24,54,300­00 and the Percentage of   Disproportionate   asset   is   142.27%. 2 Presently   AE   residing   at   Jagaluru   Town, J.C.R. Extension in the first floor of Khasim Miyya’s   (owner   of   Grocery)   house.  This source report is submitted in order to file out more details about additional property details,   gold,   silver,   and   lockers   in   the person’s house, (2) and Assistant Engineer office, Town Panchayath, Jagaluru and (3) Smt.   Gowramma’s   sister   Smt.   Umadevi’s house at J.C.R. Extension.

(emphasis supplied) It is said that the aforesaid report was prepared basing on a secret   information,   received   from   an   informant.   The Superintendent of Police endorsed taking action against the respondent   under   Section   13(1)(e),   13(2)   of   PC   Act. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha,   Davanagere   registered   Crime   No.   103/2013 u/Sec.   13(1)(e)   r/w.   Section   13(2)   of   the   PC   Act,   dated 29.10.2013, against the Respondent herein. In the column No. 3(d) of the FIR, General Diary reference entry No and time is noted as  ’04 11:30 AM’. The State herein has not disputed   the   fact  that  there was no  entry  in  the General Diary, during the conduction of the preliminary enquiry. It may not be out of context to note that after completion of the   investigation,   a   Final   Report   was   prepared   and   filed 3 before the appropriate court. Aggrieved by the manner in which   the   police   have   conducted   the   investigation,   the respondent   herein,   filed   a   Criminal   Petition   No.   7166   of 2015, before the Karnataka High Court.

5. The   second   set   of   facts   reveals   that   on   21.07.2011,   the Karnataka   Lokayuktha   Police,   basing   on   a   confidential information  about   amassing  of the  disproportionate assets by one C. Mrutyunjayaswamy (respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 5606/2017), who was working as Secretary to Government, PWD, Vikas Saudha, Bengaluru, prepared a Source Report recommending investigation into the assets of the aforesaid accused.   Superintendent  of  Police, Karnataka  Lokayuktha, City   Division,   Bengaluru   by   Order   No. LOK/INV(G)SP/CITY/01/2011,   dated   21/07/2011   ordered his deputy to register a FIR. On the same date, a FIR being Crime   No.   28/2011   was   registered   accordingly.   On   22­ 23.07.2011,   the   investigating   team   searched   the   office, residence, bank lockers and other places of the contesting respondents   in   this   appeal   [arising   out   of  SLP   (Crl.)   No. 5606­09/2017]. On 07.05.2013, final Report was prepared 4 after   completion   of   the   investigation,   wherein disproportionate   assets   were   observed.   Being   aggrieved   C. Mruthyunjayaswamy filed a Writ Petition No. 21782 of 2014, before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking quashing of the preliminary investigation report dated 21.07.2011 submitted by the Police Inspector of Lokayuktha and consequently the FIR dated 21.07.2011 filed by the deputy Superintendent of Police,   Karnataka   Lokayuktha   Police   in   Crime   No.   28   of 2011 and all the subsequent proceedings on the file of the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Special Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.

8. By the impugned order the High Court quashed the FIR on the main grounds as under­ i. That   the   preliminary   report   conducted   by   the   police was   done   without   any   entries   made   in   the   Station Diary­ as to the conduction of the preliminary enquiry. ii. Reliance was placed on the  Case of Lalitha Kumari, (2014) 2 SCC 1, paragraph 120.7 and 120.8, to come to 6 a  conclusion  that it is mandatory  to make entries in the Station Diary and failure of the same would be fatal for the prosecution.

iii. That   any   proceedings   conducted   after   such   alleged illegality would be rendered  non­est  in the eyes of law and consequently are liable to be quashed accordingly.

(Emphasis supplied)

…

(Emphasis supplied)

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive   of   all   conditions   which   may warrant preliminary inquiry.

120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights   of   the   accused   and   the complainant,   a   preliminary   inquiry should   be   made   time­bound   and   in   any 14 case   it   should   not   exceed   7   days.   The fact   of   such   delay   and   the   causes   of   it must   be   reflected   in   the   General   Diary entry.

(Emphasis supplied)

19. Our conclusion herein is strengthened by the fact that CrPC itself   has   differentiated   between   irregularity   and   illegality. The   obligation   of   maintenance   of   General   Diary   is   part   of course of conduct of the concerned officer, which may not itself   have   any   bearing   on   the   criminal   trial   unless   some grave prejudice going to the root of matter is shown to exist at   the   time   of   the   trial.1  Conspicuous   absence   of   any provision under CrPC concerning the omissions and errors during   investigation   also   bolsters   the   conclusion   reached herein.2 1 Union of India and Ors. v. T. Nathamuni, (2014) 16 SCC 285 2 Niranjan Singh and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 142. 17

21. Therefore, we allow these appeals and, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court. Before we part it may be noted that we have not expressed any views on merits of the case and the trial court is to proceed expeditiously uninfluenced by any observations made herein.