M. KRISHNA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 19-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M. KRISHNA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
FEBRUARY 19, 1999 
B 
(G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SH.'\H, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 161, 482--l'revelltion of cor-
ntption Act, 1988-Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2)-Complaint of possession of dis-
proportionate assets-'B' form in earlier FIR accepted by competent 
C court-Earlier check period covered in second FIR-Whether the second FIR 
is liable to be quashed on this ground-field, No-!t cannot be a ground for 
quashing the FIR. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 13(l)(e), 13(2T-Valua-
ition of assets-Whether assets valued at a particular rate in earlier proceeding 
D !~an be enhanced later-Held, cannot be valued higher in a later proceeding 
unless any positive ground is therefor valuation. 
A complaint was drawn in 1989 against the appellant, a Class-I 
Officer of Karnataka Administrative Service under Sections 13(1)(e) read 
E with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground of 
possession of disproportionate assets. After investigation a 'B' report was 
submitted in 1991 and it was accepted by the Special Judge. The 
appellant's properties were ·released from attachment. Later, in 1995 an 
FIR was filed against the appellant for offences under Section 13(1)(e) 
read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 on the allegation that between 
F 1.8.1978 and 25.7.1995 the appellant had acquired assets disproportionate 
to his known sources of income, and investigation was ordered. 
The appellant challenged the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the 
ground that the second FIR is not maintainable for the period 1.8.1978 to 
G 24.8.1989. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the FIR 
cannot be quashed. 
On appeal before this Court, the appellant contended, that the assets 
of the appellant for the period 1.8.1978 to 24.8.1989 having been the subject 
matter of an investigation in Crime Case No. 22 of 1989 a 'B' form having 
H been filed by the investigating agency which was approved by the 
780 
M. KRISHNA v. STATE 
781 
~gistrate, inclusion of the said perio'd in the fresh FIR is itself bad and A 
the FIR is . liable to be quashed, that after the FIR is given whatever 
statements are received are in course of investigation under Section 161 of 
Cr.P.C. and there cannot be two FIRs for the same period; that in view of 
Section l3(1)(e) of Prev~ntion of Corruption Act the explanation offered 
by the appellant in respect of prior proceedings having been accepted the 
said assets could not have been again taken into account for a subsequent 
criminal case; that the assets of the Government Servant are to be valued 
on the date of acquisition and not on the date of verifying of the fact as in 
the present case and such valuation itself is an unfair investigation causing 
undue harassment to the accused appellant. 
c-
The respondents contended that the present case does not fall within 
the parameters set by the court for quashing an FIR; that acceptance of a 
'B' form by the court cannot be held to be order of acquittal after trial, 
B 
c~ 
and there is no legal impediment to have a fresh FIR for the entire service 
period of a government servant and investigate into the assets of the 
employee for the entire· period; that the assets of the employee shall be D 
valued on the date of acquisition and on the date when the criminal case 
was instituted, and that the investigating agency is duty bound to take into 
consideration the fact of 'B' form and the order of the Magistrate, before 
ultimately filing the chargesheet or the 'B' form as the case may be but the 
very investigation cannot be quashed at this stage. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. which debars the filing 
of an FIR and investigating into the alleged offences merely because for 
an earlier period namely, 1.8.1978 to 24.8.1989 there was First Information 
F 
Report which was duly investigated into and culminated in a 'B' form 
which was accepted by a competent court. (785-B] 
2. The conclusion of the High Court that the present proceeding 
relates to fresh alleged assets and fresh check period is not wholly correct, 
in as much as admittedly the check period from 1.8.1978 till 24.8.1989 was G 
the subject matter in the Crime Case No. 22 of 89 and the same ended in 
submission of 'B' form. Though the earlier period also could be a subject 
matter of investigation for variety of reasons like some assets not being 
taken into accou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.