STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus AVADH KISHORE GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 18-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
v. 
AVADH KISHORE GUPTA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 18, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482/Prevention of 
. Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(e): 
Petition to quash the investigation and the proceedings against a 
Government Servant under Prevention of Corruption Act-High Court quashed 
the proceedings holding that the evidence collected does not suggest that if 
prosecuted the Government servant would be liable for conviction-On appeal, 
Held: Since no procedural enactment could be exhaustive, inherent powers 
D vested with the Courts to do the right and to undo the wrong while 
administering justice-However, no inflexible rule governing exercise of such 
power could be laid down-To be exercised sparingly only when exercise of 
such power justified-It could be exercised when continuance of the 
proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court and quashing of the 
proceedings serve the ends of justice-However, High Court has to prima 
E facie satisfy itself of existence of sufficient ground for not proceeding against 
an accused-However, High Court cannot act as a trial Court·-ln the facts 
and circumstances of the case, High Court not justified in quashing the 
investigation and proceedings relying only on the annexures to the petition 
which cannot be considered as evidence-Evidence Act, 1872. 
F 
G 
Legal Maxims: 
Maxims 'uando lex aliquid concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa 
esse non potest', 'ex debito justitiae'-Meaning of 
Words and Phrases: 
'known source of income', 'income', 'satisfactorily account'-Meaning 
of in the context of Prevention of Corruption Act. 
A complaint was registered by the Special Police Establishment, 
H 
Lokayukt, Gwalior under Prevention of Corruption Act against respondent 
672 
STATE OF M.P. v. A.K. GUPTA 
673 
No.I, an Executive Engineer, working in the Public Health Engineering Deptt A 
of Government of Madhya Pradesh. Respondent No. I and his family members/ 
relatives filed a petition in the High Court to quash the investigation and the 
proceedings on the ground that income of his family members/relatives was 
not taken into consideration in the investigation proceedings against him, on 
the charge of acquiring property beyond his known source of income, 
punishable under Section 13(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act High B 
Court quashed the investigation and proceedings against him holding that 
the properties acquired by his family members/relatives could not have been 
taken into consideration for constituting the offence against him and that 
evidence collected were insufficient to suggest that if he is prosecuted, there 
is chance of conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
C 
It was contended for the appellant-State that while considering petition 
for quashing the investigation/proceedings, it is not permissible for the High 
Court to hold trial or to sift evidence; and that without complying with the 
requirements of Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court erroneously quashed the 
proceedings. 
]) 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the Investigating 
Agency could not have alleged commission of offence under Section 13(l)(e) 
of the Act, without first affording the accused an opportunity to explain. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. It cannot be said that "known sources of income" means 
sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of 
things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those would be 
matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning 
E 
of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. [678-G-H; 679-A) 
F 
1.2. It can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its 
recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua 
the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, would be the primary 
item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the 
public servant, would be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) G 
his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral 
secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known 
sources of income" of a public servant. [679-C-D[ 
1.3. The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily 
account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the H 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R

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