Preliminary enquiry is necessary before disproportionate assets prosecution when the source report lacks material particulars and independent application of mind

In a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court quashed the FIR, charge sheet and criminal proceedings because the source report lacked material particulars on assets, liabilities and known sources of income, and did not provide a prima facie basis for registration of the case. The competent authority's order authorising investigation was based on that deficient report without meaningful independent application of mind or a proper preliminary enquiry. The court applied the principle that, in such cases, a preliminary enquiry is permissible and necessary before subjecting a public servant to criminal process, and that a bare source report cannot justify investigation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR, charge sheet and criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act were liable to be quashed for want of a proper preliminary enquiry and for non-compliance with the statutory procedure before authorising investigation.

Analysis: The material showed that the Anti-Corruption Bureau acted on a source report based largely on the income-tax raid and the correspondence sent by the income-tax authorities, while the income-tax proceedings themselves were still stated to be under progress. The source report did not contain adequate particulars of the assets, liabilities, known sources of income, or the foundation required to assess disproportionate assets. The order of the Superintendent of Police proceeded on that source report and authorised registration of the case and investigation, without disclosing a meaningful independent application of mind or a proper preliminary enquiry. In the circumstances, the Court followed the principle that, in disproportionate assets matters, a preliminary enquiry is permissible and necessary before putting a public servant to a criminal process, and that a bare or unsupported source report cannot justify registration and investigation under the anti-corruption law.

Conclusion: The proceedings were held unsustainable and were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The criminal prosecution could not be sustained because the foundational material was deficient and the statutory pre-investigation safeguards were not properly observed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disproportionate assets case, a prosecution cannot be sustained unless the preliminary material discloses a prima facie basis for the allegation and the competent authority applies its mind before authorising investigation; a source report lacking material particulars is insufficient to justify criminal proceedings.

---