SC Overturns Madras HC Order, Revives Disproportionate Assets Case Against Bureaucrat

The Supreme Court has overturned the Madras High Court’s decision to quash a disproportionate assets case against a bureaucrat at the pre-trial stage.

The apex court held that the High Court had erred in conducting a “mini-trial” and prematurely assessing the prospects of conviction and the validity of sanction for prosecution.

A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra criticized the High Court for interfering in the case before relevant material was brought on record. Court observed that issues such as the validity of sanction and the likelihood of conviction should be determined during the trial.

High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction

“We are of the clear opinion that the High Court has exceeded the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,” the Supreme Court stated in its judgment.

The Court emphasized that findings regarding the legality or delay in granting sanction were premature. It reiterated that the validity of sanction must be examined during the trial and not at the pre-trial stage.

Case Background

The case involves allegations that the respondent-accused had acquired assets worth Rs. 26,88,057/- disproportionate to his known sources of income between 2001 and 2008. As a result, an FIR was registered against him under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The accused had earlier filed a discharge application before the trial court, which was rejected on the grounds that a prima facie case existed against him. The High Court also dismissed a revision petition challenging this order. However, in a later quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court set aside the FIR, citing “bleak conviction prospects” and “invalid sanction.”

Court’s Criticism

The court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by engaging in factual determinations regarding the accused’s assets, including his wife’s real estate income and his daughter’s alleged gift. These were matters to be examined during the trial, not at the pre-trial stage.

“Instead of determining whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the High Court asked the wrong question—whether the evidence warranted a conviction,” the Supreme Court noted.

Key Observations

The High Court erred in quashing the prosecution on the grounds of invalid sanction.

The accused had raised identical objections in his revision petition and quashing petition, without any change in facts or circumstances.

The validity of sanction can be examined during the trial, and minor typographical errors in documents can be clarified in court.

A delay in granting sanction alone is not sufficient grounds to quash a criminal case.

Order to Expedite Trial

Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and directed that the trial resume without further delay. Given that the case had already been pending for 17 years, the Court ordered an expedited trial.