Corruption has become a way of life; botched investigations in these cases are more distressing: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a strongly-worded judgment that lamented the pervasive corruption which is preventing equal distribution of wealth in India, and has regrettably become a way of life [State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh]..A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta made the observations while setting aside a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former State government consultant."Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. It is not now limited to the spheres of activities of governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say it has become a way of one’s life. Indeed, it is a matter of disgrace for the entire community that not only on the one hand is there a steady decline in steadfastly pursuing the lofty ideals which the founding fathers of our Constitution had in mind, degradation of moral values in society is rapidly on the rise on the other," the judgment stated. .The Court went on to note that what was more distressing were the inquiries that follow common outbreaks of scams. More often than not, these are botched and assume the proportion of bigger scams than the scams themselves, it added."However, should this state of affairs be allowed to continue? Tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing them appropriately is the mandate of the P.C. Act.".The plea was moved by the State government against a husband-wife duo after the High Court quashed the FIR. Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the High Court had committed an error by transgressing the legal bounds for quashing the FIR on the ground that it was based on “probabilities”.Further, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde highlighted that the preliminary enquiry carried out prior to registering the FIR revealed disproportionate assets to the tune of 20 per cent of one of the respondent's income. Hence, this was not an appropriate case where the power to quash an FIR should have been exercised, he submitted..On the other hand, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani said that the respondents had been targeted since the political dispensation in the State underwent a change. He stated that by misusing the police machinery, no stone has been left unturned to falsely implicate them. .Before coming to its findings, the Court offered a solution on how governments can enable investigating agencies to crack down on corruption more efficiently."To weed out corrupt public servants, the Government has to engage sincere and dedicated personnel for collecting and collating the necessary material in this regard. If there be no interventions, the investigation that is likely to follow in terms of the Cr. P.C., could enable the investigating officer to collect and collate the entire evidence establishing the essential links between the public servant and the property or pecuniary resources in dispute. Since snapping of any link in the chain of circumstances could prove fatal to the whole exercise, it is of utmost necessity that care and dexterity are not compromised.".The Court held that the law of the land is meant to prevent any public servant from illicitly enriching themselves during the tenure of their service."Increase in the assets of such a public servant tantamount to constitutionally impermissible conduct and such conduct is liable to be put under the scanner of the P.C. Act."It was stated that based on their reading of the FIR, the Court could not agree with the High Court's reasons to quash it. "While deciding the challenge to the FIR, the High Court – unwittingly, we presume – did not bear in mind the note of caution in Bhajan Lal (supra) to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases", the judgment further stated. .The Court also rejected the argument of mala fide motives on the State's part, reasoning that the same had no basis.It was also added that in a case of disproportionate assets, material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court is decisive to determine the fate of the accused. "To our mind, whether the first information report is the outcome of mala fide would be of secondary importance. In such a case, should the allegations of mala fide be of some prima facie worth, would pale into insignificance if sufficient materials are gathered for sending the accused up for a trial.".With these observations, it was held that there were no cogent grounds for quashing the FIR, and thus, the High Court judgment was set aside. On a parting note, it said,"We quite appreciate that there could be cases of innocent public servants being entangled in investigations arising out of motivated complaints and the consequent mental agony, emotional pain and social stigma that they would have to encounter in the process, but this small price has to be paid if there is to be a society governed by the rule of law. While we do not intend to fetter the high courts from intervening in appropriate cases, it is only just and proper to remind the courts to be careful, circumspect and cautious in quashing first information reports resting on mala fide of the nature alleged herein.".[Read Judgment]