The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman
Background
A senior health official in Jammu and Kashmir was accused of causing a loss of over Rs. 1 crore to the government by arranging the purchase of medical kits at inflated prices from select companies under a rural health scheme. An FIR was registered against him under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and for criminal conspiracy, and investigation was entrusted to a police inspector. The accused challenged the FIR before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which quashed the entire prosecution, holding that the investigating officer's authorisation lacked recorded reasons, that prior sanction of a magistrate was needed for the conspiracy charge, that the preliminary enquiry exceeded permissible limits, and even struck down the Vigilance Manual rule allowing such enquiries as unconstitutional.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court disagreed with each of the High Court's grounds. It held that the J&K anti-corruption law's authorisation provision, unlike the law considered in the precedent the High Court relied on, did not require written reasons for authorising an officer to investigate, only that the authorisation itself exist and show application of mind. It also held no separate magistrate's sanction was needed just because a non-cognizable conspiracy charge was clubbed with a cognizable corruption offence, that a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR is a permissible and useful safeguard (not an illegal shortcut) as long as it only checks for a prima facie case, and that the accused official could be individually prosecuted even without the private company directors being charged. The Court restored the FIR and allowed the investigation to proceed.
Lesson Learnt
A preliminary enquiry conducted carefully before registering an FIR in a corruption case is not automatically illegal, and procedural objections about who authorised an investigation will not succeed unless the law in question specifically demands written reasons.