1995 (11) TMI 455 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Principles of natural justice and compliance with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Validity of the sanction order.
3. Alleged mala fides of the authorities.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Principles of Natural Justice and Compliance with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the principles of natural justice were denied, as the respondent was not given an opportunity to explain the disproportionate assets before the registration of the offence. The Supreme Court held that the opportunity to satisfactorily account for the assets is to be given during the trial, not before the registration of the case. The Court referred to the judgment in K. Veeraswami's case, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the disproportionate assets, and the accused must provide a satisfactory explanation during the trial.

2. Validity of the Sanction Order:
The High Court found the sanction order invalid, stating that it did not mention that the property was disproportionate to the respondent's known sources of income. The Supreme Court observed that the schedule annexed to the sanction order clearly stated that the respondent failed to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets. The Court held that the sanction order was valid and that the High Court's observations were incorrect.

3. Alleged Mala Fides of the Authorities:
The High Court inferred mala fides from the manner of the respondent's suspension and the service of the suspension order. The Supreme Court found no justification for the High Court's conclusion of mala fides, noting that the suspension order was passed after the First Information Report was filed. The Court emphasized that allegations of mala fides are irrelevant if the prosecution can establish the commission of the offence.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for exercising its jurisdiction to quash the prosecution proceedings. The Court reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the prosecution once it was launched, as the truthfulness of the allegations and the establishment of guilt can only be determined during the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and emphasized that the trial should proceed without interruption to determine the truthfulness of the allegations and the guilt of the respondent.