The Supreme Court of India has allowed an appeal of State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Vigilance And Anti Corruption Chennai City-I Department v/s G. Easwaran., against a final judgment of the High Court of Madras, which had quashed criminal proceedings against a respondent accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The apex court firmly reiterated that such matters, especially after a discharge application and revision petition have been dismissed, should proceed to trial rather than be prematurely quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

The case originated from a complaint alleging that the respondent, a government servant, had amassed assets exceeding his legitimate earnings during the period of January 1, 2001, to August 31, 2008. An investigation revealed disproportionate assets worth Rs. 26,88,057/-, leading to the registration of an FIR and subsequent sanction for prosecution by the State government in July 2013. A chargesheet was filed in September 2013.

The respondent's application for discharge before the Special Court, Chennai, was dismissed in January 2016. The Special Court, after detailed consideration, found a prima facie case against the accused, even after acknowledging some revisions in the valuation of assets as explained by the prosecution. The court explicitly stated that the validity of certain income claims and a gift could only be determined after a full trial.

Subsequently, the High Court of Madras dismissed the respondent's revision petition against the Special Court's order in April 2017, affirming the lower court's findings that sufficient material existed to proceed with charges. The High Court emphasized that the contentions raised by the accused were not grounds for discharge at that stage and granted liberty to the petitioner to present his arguments during the trial.

However, within seven months, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, essentially on the same grounds previously rejected. The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, strongly criticized this move, citing established legal principles that while the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. doesn't eliminate the remedy under Section 482, the inherent powers of the High Court must be exercised sparingly, particularly after the dismissal of a discharge application and a revision petition.

The apex court referred to its earlier rulings in Krishnan vs. Krishnaveni and Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar, which cautioned against circumventing the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the High Court should not conduct a "mini trial" at the stage of considering a discharge petition. The court reiterated that the focus should be on whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, not whether a conviction is guaranteed.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the High Court's conclusion regarding the alleged invalidity and delay in granting sanction for prosecution. The High Court had questioned the timeline of the sanction process based on the statement of a witness. However, the Supreme Court noted that this issue was not raised in the earlier proceedings and that the State had clarified a typographical error in the dates. The apex court firmly stated that the validity of a sanction is a matter to be examined during the trial, citing precedents like Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal.

In its final verdict, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in quashing the prosecution by exceeding the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The apex court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the criminal case (C.C. No. 30/2013) to the file of the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai, for the continuation of the trial. Given the age of the case, pertaining to the period 2001-2008, the Trial Court has been requested to expedite the trial proceedings.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988