Supreme Court clarifies the mandatory nature of General Diary entries during preliminary inquiries in corruption cases (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 428
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Is it mandatory to record every step of a preliminary inquiry in the General Diary for a corruption case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the importance of General Diary entries in investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court examined whether the absence of such entries during a preliminary inquiry would invalidate the entire proceeding. This judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for preliminary inquiries in corruption cases, specifically addressing whether the absence of entries in the General Diary is fatal to the prosecution. The judgment was authored by Justice N.V. Ramana, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Case Background

The case involves two separate instances of alleged corruption. The first case concerns H. Srinivas, an Assistant Engineer at Jagaluru Pattana Panchayat, who was accused of possessing disproportionate assets. A source report was filed against him on October 25, 2013, alleging that his assets were 142.27% more than his known income. Based on this report, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on October 29, 2013, under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The police did not make a General Diary entry for the preliminary inquiry.

The second case involves C. Mrutyunjayaswamy, Secretary to Government, PWD, and his family members, who were also accused of amassing disproportionate assets. A source report was prepared on July 21, 2011, leading to the registration of an FIR on the same day. Searches were conducted on July 22-23, 2011, at various locations. Subsequently, Mrutyunjayaswamy and his family members filed writ petitions seeking to quash the preliminary investigation report and the FIR, along with the seizure proceedings. The primary contention in both cases was that the preliminary inquiries were conducted without the mandatory entries in the General Diary, rendering the entire proceedings illegal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Karnataka clubbed all the cases and framed common questions of law, including whether a preliminary inquiry could be conducted without a complaint or prior to the registration of an FIR, whether the complainant could also act as the investigating officer, and whether an illegal search and seizure would be fatal to the prosecution. The High Court quashed the FIRs, primarily on the ground that the preliminary inquiries were conducted without entries in the Station Diary, relying on the judgment in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. The High Court held that the failure to make such entries was fatal to the prosecution and rendered all subsequent proceedings non-est.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the State of Karnataka and other authorities appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s order was cryptic and without proper reasoning. They contended that the conclusion in paragraph 120.8 of the Lalitha Kumari case should be read in context, and that a defect in the investigation should not result in quashing the proceedings. The State also argued that lodging an FIR is not a precondition for initiating criminal proceedings, and that preliminary inquiries are necessary in corruption cases to protect government servants from unwarranted prosecutions.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision under consideration is Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with the recording of information in cognizable cases. The Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1], clarified that while the registration of an FIR is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offense, there are instances where a preliminary inquiry may be necessary. The court also discussed the significance of the General Diary, which is a record of all important transactions in a police station. The court noted that the concept of the General Diary does not flow from Section 154 of the CrPC, 1973, and that the requirement to record the FIR in the FIR book is distinct from the entries in the General Diary.

Section 44 of the Police Act of 1861, which mandates the maintenance of a General Diary, was also considered. The court noted that while maintaining a General Diary is an obligation for the concerned police officer, non-maintenance per se does not render the whole prosecution illegal. The court also highlighted that the CrPC differentiates between irregularity and illegality, and that errors during investigation do not necessarily invalidate a criminal trial unless grave prejudice is shown.

Arguments

Arguments by the State:

• The High Court’s order was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning.
• The conclusion in Para 120.8 of the Lalitha Kumari case should be read in context, and it does not mandate that an entry in the General Diary is a pre-condition for lodging an FIR.
• A defect or irregularity in the investigation cannot result in the quashing of proceedings.
• Lodging of the FIR is not a precondition for initiating criminal proceedings.
• Preliminary inquiries are necessary in corruption cases to safeguard government servants from unwarranted prosecutions.
• The High Court’s consideration in Criminal Petition No. 7166 of 2015 (H. Srinivas case) was insufficient and reflected a non-application of mind.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The Lalitha Kumari case was a declaratory judgment, and the Supreme Court has emphasized the significance of Station Diary entries for preliminary inquiries.
• Strict adherence to the conclusions in the Lalitha Kumari case is required.
• The illegality in the present case goes to the root of the matter, mandating the quashing of the FIR on a pure question of law.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the absence of entries in the General Diary concerning the preliminary inquiry would render the proceedings illegal.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIRs based on the non-maintenance of General Diary entries.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras [(1970) 1 SCC 595] – Supreme Court of India: Established the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants in corruption cases.
• Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India: Clarified the mandatory registration of FIRs and the scope of preliminary inquiries.
• Smt. Kesar Devi v. Union of India & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 427] – Supreme Court of India: Stated that judgments are not legislations, they have to be read in the context and background discussions.
• Union of India and Ors. v. T. Nathamuni [(2014) 16 SCC 285] – Supreme Court of India: Differentiated between irregularity and illegality.
• Niranjan Singh and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 142] – Supreme Court of India: Stated that omissions and errors during investigation do not invalidate a criminal trial.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: Deals with the recording of information in cognizable cases.
• Section 44 of the Police Act of 1861: Obligation of the concerned Police Officer to maintain a General Diary.
• Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Offence of possessing disproportionate assets.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras [(1970) 1 SCC 595]* to emphasize the need for preliminary inquiries in corruption cases. The court explained the Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1]* judgment, clarifying that it does not mandate that every step of a preliminary inquiry be recorded in the General Diary. The court also cited Smt. Kesar Devi v. Union of India & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 427]* to emphasize that judgments are to be read in context and not as legislation. Further, the court followed Union of India and Ors. v. T. Nathamuni [(2014) 16 SCC 285]* to differentiate between irregularity and illegality. The Supreme Court also relied on Niranjan Singh and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 142]* to highlight that errors during investigation do not invalidate a criminal trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the criminal justice system is not misused to harass public servants and that procedural irregularities do not automatically invalidate a criminal trial. The court emphasized that the absence of General Diary entries is an irregularity and not an illegality, and that such irregularities should be weighed by the trial court along with the merits of the case. The court also stressed that judgments should be read in context and not as legislation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected the High Court’s view that the absence of General Diary entries is fatal to the prosecution. The Court concluded that the absence of entries in the General Diary is an irregularity, not an illegality, and that it does not render the entire proceedings illegal. The Court emphasized that the trial court should weigh the effect of such non-maintenance of the General Diary and decide the case on merits.

The court held that the binding conclusions reached in paragraph 120.8 of the Lalitha Kumari case is an obligation of best efforts for the concerned officer to record all events concerning an enquiry. If the officer has not recorded, then it is for the trial court to weigh the effect of the same for reasons provided therein.

The Court quoted, “The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.”

The Court also quoted, “Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

The Court further quoted, “The obligation of maintenance of General Diary is part of course of conduct of the concerned officer, which may not itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some grave prejudice going to the root of matter is shown to exist at the time of the trial.”

Key Takeaways

• The absence of entries in the General Diary during a preliminary inquiry is not per se illegal and does not automatically invalidate the proceedings.
• The trial court must weigh the effect of non-maintenance of the General Diary along with the merits of the case.
• Preliminary inquiries in corruption cases are necessary to protect public servants from unwarranted prosecutions.
• Judgments should be read in context and not as legislation.
• Procedural irregularities during investigation do not automatically invalidate a criminal trial unless grave prejudice is shown.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously uninfluenced by any observations made in the judgment and to weigh the effect of non-maintenance of the General Diary along with the merits of the case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the absence of entries in the General Diary during a preliminary inquiry is an irregularity and not an illegality, and it does not render the entire proceedings illegal. This judgment clarifies that the Lalitha Kumari case does not mandate that every step of a preliminary inquiry be recorded in the General Diary. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural irregularities during investigation do not automatically invalidate a criminal trial unless grave prejudice is shown. The court reiterated the importance of preliminary inquiries in corruption cases to protect public servants from unwarranted prosecutions, while ensuring that such inquiries are not misused to delay justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order. The court clarified that the absence of entries in the General Diary during a preliminary inquiry is not fatal to the prosecution. The court emphasized that the trial court should weigh the effect of such non-maintenance of the General Diary and decide the case on merits, without being influenced by any observations made in the judgment. This judgment provides clarity on the procedural aspects of preliminary inquiries in corruption cases and ensures that the criminal justice system is not misused to harass public servants.