Supreme Court – Daily Orders
State Of Rajasthan vs Panna Lal on 13 April, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.15062/2023]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PANNA LAL RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises from an order dated 26.05.2023
passed by the High Court for Rajasthan, Bench at
Jaipur, in SB Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition)
No.1842/2023, whereby the High Court quashed First
Information Report (FIR) No.116/2021, dated 09.04.2021,
registered with PS Bundi, Headquarter, Anti-Corruption
Bureau (ACB), Jaipur, on the ground that it is a second
FIR on same set of allegations in respect of which FIR
No.404/2019 has already been registered.
4. FIR No.404/2019, dated 27.12.1999, registered
against the first respondent, a public servant, inter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
alia, alleges that bribe of Rs. 2 lacs, which was later
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2026.04.15
17:33:33 IST
Reason:
1
reduced to Rs. 1 lac, was demanded by the first
respondent to release security money and F.D.R. The FIR
goes on to narrate that a trap was laid, and
Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered. It was registered under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Investigation thereupon resulted in a charge sheet
No.46/2020 dated 19.02.2020.
5. FIR No.116/2021, dated 09.04.2021, registered
against the first respondent inter alia alleges that
during raid/ search of first respondent’s house, cash
amounting to Rs.16,84,785 and many documents pertaining
to policies, bank accounts in the name of accused and
his family members were recovered. FIR recites, that
after enquiry it was found that in the check period
(i.e. 1993 to 2019) the savings of the first respondent
could have been Rs.31,07,080/- whereas the first
respondent acquired properties worth Rs.11,32,62,563/-
in the name of his wife, father, brother, son, sister-
in-law and other close relatives. Based on that, it was
alleged that first respondent in the check period had
acquired assets to the tune of Rs.11,01,55,483/-
disproportionate to his known source of income. Thus,
by alleging that the first respondent had misused his
position in the State service and acquired assets
2
disproportionate to his known sources of his legitimate
income, FIR No. 116/2021 was lodged under Section 13
(1) (b)/ 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
6. Impugning FIR No.116/2021, the respondent
submitted before the High Court that as
disproportionate assets were found during the
investigation of the first FIR, second FIR could not
have been registered. This argument found favour with
the High Court and, consequently, FIR No.116/2021 was
quashed. The High Court relied on a coordinate Bench
decision of the High Court which, in turn, relied on
this Court’s decision in T.T. Antony v. State of
Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. Besides, High Court cited
Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short, CrPC) to observe that since charges
levelled in the impugned FIR were definitely committed
within a period of one year, therefore they may be
tried, in the event of filing of charge-sheet by the
police, along with the charges of the first FIR.
7. In our view, High Court committed a grave mistake
in quashing FIR No.116/2021. No doubt, T.T. Antony
(supra) proscribes a second FIR for the same offence.
But here the offence is neither same nor committed
3
simultaneously or in one transaction. FIR No.404/2019
deals with an offence punishable under Section 7 of
P.C. Act relating to demand and acceptance of Rs.1 lac
as bribe whereas FIR No.116/2021 relates to possessing
assets disproportionate to the known source of income,
during the check period 1993 to 2019, amounting to over
Rs.11 crores. As the two offences are distinct and
separate and relate to different periods, there was no
occasion for the High Court to quash FIR No.116/2021.
8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order of the High Court is set aside. The FIR
No.116/2021 shall be restored on the file of the police
station concerned and shall be investigated in
accordance with law.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………………J
[MANOJ MISRA]
………………………………………………………………………………J
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi
April 13, 2026
4
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.15062/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
26-05-2023 in SBCRLMP No. 1842/2023 passed by the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PANNA LAL Respondent(s)
IA No. 233045/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 233053/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.
Date : 13-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhishek Gautam, AOR
Mr. Shubham Soni, Adv.
Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order
which is placed on the file.
5
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
6
