The Bombay High Court has upheld the rejection of discharge applications filed by a former public servant and his wife in a CBI disproportionate assets case, holding that a second FIR is maintainable where it relates to a distinct offence with separate ingredients and a different cause of action, even if it emerges during the investigation of an earlier case.
The applicants contended that the disproportionate assets FIR was impermissible as it stemmed from an earlier corruption case in which the Central Government had declined sanction for prosecution. Rejecting the contention, the Court observed that while the first FIR related to allegations of criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position, the subsequent FIR concerned possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, an offence carrying distinct legal ingredients.
The Court also declined to accept, at the discharge stage, explanations regarding large sums of cash recovered from the residence and bank lockers, including claims that the amounts belonged to family members or clients of the accused’s wife, a practising Chartered Accountant. It held that such assertions require evidentiary examination during trial and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold.
Significantly, the Court observed that following the 2018 amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, the statutory framework places the eventual burden on the public servant to satisfactorily account for wealth in his possession. It further noted that discharge is warranted only where the prosecution case is demonstrably groundless or suffers from fundamental or mathematical errors, adding that a reasonable margin of error in calculating disproportionate assets may be permissible but the present case involved substantial recoveries requiring a full-fledged trial.
Accordingly, the High Court found sufficient material to proceed against both accused and dismissed their revision applications.
