For that purpose first I like to deal with the aspect whether the enquiry/verification made prior to lodging of FIR is permissible under law or not. Upon receipt of source report dated 23.5.2004 the Anti Corruption Bureau first ascertained the fact and enquired into with regard to the contents of the source report dated 23.5.2004 and upon verification of the contents of the complaint the FIR was lodged.
65. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after enquiry and verification if any charge sheet containing the gist of the enquiry lodged the FIR, this tantamount of charge sheet under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
66. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. speaks about the report of police officer on completion of investigation. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the moment the investigation is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government.
67. By bare perusal of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. it reveals that it is a report/challan, which is filed by the police officer after completion of investigation. Herein the instant case as submitted by learned AAG that to take abandoned caution to verify the genuineness of the complaint filed against the person they first inquired into the matter and after ascertaining the fact and allegations alleged in the complaint, only thereafter, Anti Corruption Bureau lodged the FIR.
68. This is not on the basis of internal arrangement but also on the basis of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The enquiry and the verification is permitted prior to lodging of FIR.
69. Upon perusal of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1971 SC 520 it appears that if the Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner.
He further submits that nothing illegality has been committed while lodging the FIR against the petitioner for offence under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Anti Corruption Bureau on receipt of source information, undertakes the verification of the general reputation of the concerned person against whom such information is received. In the present case, during the course of verification of the source information report, the Anti Corruption Bureau found the general reputation of the petitioner to the effect that he has been habitually accepting and obtaining illegal gratification and agreeing to accept or attempting to obtain such gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as has been mentioned in Section 7 of the Act in lieu of giving favourable judgments. It is, therefore, not necessary that FIR under Section 13 shall be lodged only if a person has been convicted in the past for any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Two cases have been registered against the petitioner, which is indicative of the fact that the petitioner was habitual of receiving illegal gratification.
46. Mr. Rafiq further submits that verification in enquiry before lodging the FIR is only to avoid frivolous complaint and to prevent maligning the reputation of a particular person against whom the complaint is received by the Anti Corruption Department and upon verification only the FIR is being lodged. This is done only because the Anti Corruption Bureau received so many complaints and in the interest of person concerned it is necessary to first ascertain and verify the fact whether the contents of the complaint is correct or not.
Rajasthan High Court
Ravi Shankar Srivastava vs State Of Raj. And Ors. on 9 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: RLW 2005 (3) Raj 1736, 2005 (2) WLC 612
