2003 (4) TMI 593 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the investigation based on G.D. Entry No. 681.
2. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on October 20, 1990.
3. Legality of the search and seizure conducted on October 18, 1990.
4. Return of the money and articles seized.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Investigation Based on G.D. Entry No. 681:
The High Court quashed the investigation on the grounds that the General Diary (G.D.) Entry No. 681 did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It held that the G.D. Entry contained vague allegations and did not provide sufficient basis for the police to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court, however, found that the G.D. Entry did disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as it clearly stated that the respondent had demanded and accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification. The Court emphasized that a First Information Report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia and need not disclose all details of the offence. The information provided in the G.D. Entry was sufficient to set the investigative machinery in motion.

2. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR) Lodged on October 20, 1990:
The High Court held that the FIR lodged on October 20, 1990, was not valid as it was recorded after the investigation had already proceeded to some extent. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the G.D. Entry itself could be treated as the FIR since it disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court noted that the information received by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., clearly spelled out the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Legality of the Search and Seizure Conducted on October 18, 1990:
The High Court found the search and seizure to be illegal as the mandatory requirement of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not fulfilled. The Investigating Officer did not record in writing the grounds for his belief that the search was necessary. The Supreme Court held that it was premature to consider the legality of the search and seizure at this stage, as this question should be addressed during the trial if the accused challenges the search and seizure.

4. Return of the Money and Articles Seized:
The High Court directed the return of the money and articles seized from the respondent. The Supreme Court set aside this order, allowing the investigation to proceed in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the investigating agency should complete the investigation and take appropriate action based on the evidence collected.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and directed the appellants to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. The Court clarified that its observations were made solely for deciding the question of whether the investigating agency was justified in taking up the investigation pursuant to G.D. Entry No. 681.