<p class="title">The High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Roshan Baig and two of his family members seeking quashing of proceedings in a disproportionate assets case. The court has also clarified that prior sanction for prosecution is not required against Roshan Baig.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petition was filed by Baig, his wife Sabiha Roshan and son Ruman Baig Rehman, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings before the special court, set up to deal with criminal cases against MPs/MLAs.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Lokayukta police had registered a case against the petitioners in 2012. The police submitted a 'B' report (closure report) in 2014.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In May 2018, the special court took cognizance against Sabiha and Ruman. In respect to Roshan Baig, the special court directed the investigating officer to secure sanction for prosecution from the competent authority since he was an MLA and a cabinet minister.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The special public prosecutor submitted before the High Court that prima facie material in the case revealed that the accused possessed disproportionate assets of Rs 56.71 lakh.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Justice John Michael Cunha observed that the special court judge has assigned cogent reasons to reject the 'B' report and the procedure is in accordance with the law.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court held that prior sanction for prosecution is not necessary against Baig since he ceased to hold the office which he held as a public servant at the time of the commission of the offence. </p>.<p class="bodytext">On the rejection of the 'B' report filed by the police, the high court observed that the magistrate is not bound by the opinion or conclusion of the investigating officer.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said the investigating officer filed the 'B' report on the ‘erroneous understanding of the law’ that possession of disproportionate assets within 10% of the total income does not qualify as disproportionate assets, based on a Supreme Court decision.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“This decision does not lay down any invariable rule that in all cases if the disproportionate assets possessed by the accused are less than 10% of the total income, the offence is not made out,” the court said. </p>
<p class="title">The High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Roshan Baig and two of his family members seeking quashing of proceedings in a disproportionate assets case. The court has also clarified that prior sanction for prosecution is not required against Roshan Baig.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petition was filed by Baig, his wife Sabiha Roshan and son Ruman Baig Rehman, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings before the special court, set up to deal with criminal cases against MPs/MLAs.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Lokayukta police had registered a case against the petitioners in 2012. The police submitted a 'B' report (closure report) in 2014.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In May 2018, the special court took cognizance against Sabiha and Ruman. In respect to Roshan Baig, the special court directed the investigating officer to secure sanction for prosecution from the competent authority since he was an MLA and a cabinet minister.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The special public prosecutor submitted before the High Court that prima facie material in the case revealed that the accused possessed disproportionate assets of Rs 56.71 lakh.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Justice John Michael Cunha observed that the special court judge has assigned cogent reasons to reject the 'B' report and the procedure is in accordance with the law.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court held that prior sanction for prosecution is not necessary against Baig since he ceased to hold the office which he held as a public servant at the time of the commission of the offence. </p>.<p class="bodytext">On the rejection of the 'B' report filed by the police, the high court observed that the magistrate is not bound by the opinion or conclusion of the investigating officer.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said the investigating officer filed the 'B' report on the ‘erroneous understanding of the law’ that possession of disproportionate assets within 10% of the total income does not qualify as disproportionate assets, based on a Supreme Court decision.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“This decision does not lay down any invariable rule that in all cases if the disproportionate assets possessed by the accused are less than 10% of the total income, the offence is not made out,” the court said. </p>
