STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SH. S. BANGARAPPA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 726 · Decided: 20-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
v. 
SH. S. BANGARAPPA 
NOVEMBER 20, 2000 
B 
(K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, I988: 
Section I 3 (2) read with I 3 (1) (e) Public servant acquiring assets 
C disproportionate to his know._n source of income-Held, on failure to account 
for excess of income offence is complete under the Act-Further, charge can 
be framed and trial can be commenced. 
Section I 7-Persons authorised to investigate-If investigation io be 
conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation-On order, any inspector 
D of police attached to CBI can conduct the investigation-Officer to be of the 
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is an exception. 
Section 4(1 )-Issuance of notification-Empowering the Court to frame 
charge-High Court did not check about the notification empowering the 
Sessions Judge to frame the charge under the Act-Further it quashed the 
E criminal proceedings on the Act-Further it quashed the criminal proceedings 
on the ground that the Sessions Judge is not empowered to try the case-
Held, not correct. 
Criminal Trial : 
F 
Material sufficient to frame charge-Held, Court should not evaluate 
evidence by deciding its worth-Materials adduced as evidence should be 
sufficient for the Court to proceed further. 
Interference with the case at the stage of trial-High Court scuttled the 
.. 
proceedings at the stage of trial holding investigations illegal-Held, High 
"""'" 
G Court could have directed the respondent to participate in the trial. 
Respondent acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of 
income and failed to account for the excess of income. Trial Court ordered 
framing charge under Section 13 read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to proceed with the trial against the 
II 
726 
--
.. 
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 1•. S. BANGARAPPA 
727 
respondent. High Court quashed the order. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. When the pecuniary assets acquired by the public ser1ant 
are disproportionately larger than his known sources of income, then he has 
A 
to account for such excess. The offence under Section 13 (1) (e) of the B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 becomes complete on the failure of the 
public servant to account or explain such excess. The Court can frame charge 
until the public servant fails to explain the excess or surplus pointed out to 
be the wealth or assets of the public servant concerned. The exercise can be 
complete only in the trial. [736-B-C) 
c 
M Krishna Ready v. State Dy. Superintendent of Police, (1992) 4 SCC 
45; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, [1991) 3 SCC 655 and State of 
Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Ka/patri, [1996) 1 SCC 542, relied on. 
1.2. At the stage of framing charge the Court should not enter upon a 
process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The D 
limited exercise during the stage is to find out whether the materials offered 
by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the Court to 
proceed further. [735-G) 
State of MP. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena, [1996) 11 SCC 439 and 
Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1SCC722, relied on. E 
1.3. There was no necessity for the High Court to have interfered with 
the case at stage of the trial. When the trial court has chosen to decide that 
the accused had to be tried for the offence, the High Court was not right in 
making a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence proposed to be adduced by the 
prosecution and scuttle proceedings of the trial without waiting for the trial F 
to reach its normal culmination. (729-G I 
1.4. When there is an order under the provision of Section 17 of 
Prevention of Corruption Act authorising to investigate, any Inspector of 
Police attached to the Central Bureau of Investigation can conduct the 
investigation. The Word "elsewhere" in clause (c) of Section 17 of the Act is G 
clear indication that the insistence for Deputy Superintendent of Police can 
have application only if it does not fall under clauses (a) and (b) of the Act. 
[732-E} 
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992] Supple. 1 SCC 
335, referred to . 
H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
1.5. High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the trial 
Court under Section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(e) of the Act without 
checking about the notification issued under Sec

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