STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P.V. PAVITHRAN

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 746

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY

Case summary

The very nature of such offences would necessarily involve considerable time for unearthing the crimes and bringing the culprits to book. C) Department dated 5th July 1985 as arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently to set aside the same by holding that the appellant...

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad has filed this criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the Order dated 29. 7. 1988 of tiie High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crime No. 7IACB/Cr. II/84 dated 8. 3. 1984 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB & SPE quashing the First Information Report in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. F: A few facts relevant to decide this case may be stated: The respondent was selected to the Indian Police Service in the ·year 1953 and he worked in various capacities at different places. While he was working as Commissioner of Weights & Measures, Government of Andhra Pradesh, on a report dated 7. 3. 1984 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, a ). case was registered against him on 8. 3. 1984 in Crime No. 7/ACB/Cr.

Il/84 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegations that while functioning as Commissioner of Police and later as Vice-Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board during the years 1978-82, he ingulged in corrupt practices and acquired immovable assets either in his name or STATE OF A. P. v. P. V. PAVITHRAN [PANDIAN, J. ] 749 in the name of his wife. The Anti-Corruption Bureau after completing ~-· its investigation submitted its report on 22. 4. 1987 to its Director- General who in turn sent the same to the Government on 17. 9. 1987. The Government accorded the necessary sanction for prosecution in G. O. Ms. Nos. 525 and 526 dated 16. 9. 1988.

In the meantime, the respondent filed the criminal petition for quashing further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, inter alia, ~ contending that there had been lull in the investigation for fairly long spell causing inordinate delay and that the prosecution had not filed its report contemplated under Section 173 Cr. P. C. till he filed the petition for quashing the proceedings in November 1987 though the case was registered even in March 1984. The plea of the respondent was stoutly resisted by the appellant __,.. --: