FIR registration and independent probe can be ordered on prima facie misuse of public funds without hearing a prospective accused.

A prospective accused has no right of hearing at the stage of registration of an FIR or direction for investigation, especially where the court is only acting on prima facie material and not proceeding against any identified individual. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was held inapplicable at that stage because the persons ultimately to be charged were not yet identified, and the provision was not intended to protect corrupt enrichment. The Court's Article 226 power remained available where misuse of public funds was prima facie shown and independent investigation was necessary. No error apparent on the face of the record was made out for recall.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall of the order directing registration of FIR and investigation by the CBI, and whether objections based on absence of notice and Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could justify review.

Analysis: The order under review had directed registration of an FIR and investigation on the Court's prima facie satisfaction that the allegations of siphoning and misappropriation of public funds required independent inquiry. The applicants' grievance that they were not heard before such direction was rejected because a prospective accused has no right of hearing at the stage of registration of FIR, particularly when the direction was to investigate the matter and not to proceed against any identified individual. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was held inapplicable at that stage because the persons who may ultimately be charged were not yet identified, and in any event the provision was not meant to shield corrupt enrichment. The Court also held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not curtailed where the Court is prima facie satisfied that public funds have been misused and investigation by an independent agency is necessary.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the review petitions were not maintainable on the grounds urged.

---