LexSTATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CHENNAI CITY-I DEPARTMENT versus G. EASWARAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1174 : 2025 INSC 397 State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai City-I Department v. G. Easwaran (Criminal Appeal No. 1405 of 2019) 26 March 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent u/s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income while exercising jurisdiction u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) – Allegation that appellant was hoarding assets disproportionate to his income – FIR registered u/ss.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act – State Government granted sanction to prosecute the respondent – After investigation, charge-sheet was filed – Discharge application filed by the respondent – Application dismissed by the Special Court – Revision Petition was also dismissed by the High Court – However, respondent again filed a petition u/s.482 CrPC within 7 months before the High Court virtually on same grounds – This time, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings u/s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act – Correctness: Held: It is not disputed that in the instant case, the Special Court, as well as the High Court, while dismissing the petition for discharge, examined the allegations and arrived at clear findings that there was a prima facie case against the respondent – The impugned order revisits the earlier decisions without any statable change in the facts and circumstances of the case, traverses to the extreme end of the spectrum – It is clear that the High Court jumped to the * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1175 State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai City-I Department v. G. Easwaran probable conclusion of trial by not appreciating the limited scope of s.482 CrPC – Apart from being congruent and overlapping, the respondent could not demonstrate any material change in facts and circumstances between the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court and the filing of the quashing petition u/s.482 CrPC – As far as the validity of sanction is concerned, the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial – It is settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case – Thus, the reasoning adopted by the High Court for interdicting the criminal proceedings is contrary to the well-established principles laid down by this Court. [Paras 10, 14, 15] Case Law Cited Krishnan v. Krishnaveni [1997] 1 SCR 511 : (1997) 4 SCC 241; Renu Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar [2008] 3 SCR 1006 : (2008) 12 SCC 346; State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath [2019] 8 SCR 713 : (2019) 7 SCC 515; Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India [2011] 13 SCR 260 : (2012) 1 SCC 532; Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aswal (2015) 16 SCC 163 – relied on. State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu [2022] 7 SCR 630 : (2023) 6 SCC 768; State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [2014] 1 SCR 135 : (2014) 11 SCC 709; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [2012] 7 SCR 988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460; CBI v. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal (2020) 17 SCC 664 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Disproportionate assets; Discharge application; Change in the facts and circumstances of the case; Scope of section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Government’s sanction to prosecute public authority; Validity of sanction; Course of trial. 1176 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1405 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP No. 5835 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Sabarish Subramanian, Poornachandiran R, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Danish Saifi. Advs. for the Respondent: Dama Seshadri Naidu, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Sr. Advs., Abhishek Gupta, Praful Shukla. Jud
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.