Investigation Initiated Without FIR Registration Illegal; Prosecution Documents Prepared After Trap Proceedings 'Table Investigation': Andhra Pradesh High Court

"He transgressed and abused power of investigation, preparing proceedings at his office. What is generally known as table investigation. Therefore, undoubtedly FIR in the case is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. Investigation based on it, abridge the rights of the accused under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that any criminal investigation initiated before the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is illegal and violates the constitutional rights of the accused.

A single-judge bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi observed that when the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) prepares the FIR and trap proceedings documents simultaneously after the conclusion of a trap, it constitutes a "table investigation" that is hit by the bar under Section 162 of the CrPC.

The case involved a Government Stockiest (Accused No. 1) and a private person (Accused No. 2) who were convicted by a Special Court for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from a transport contractor (P.W-1) to process transport bills. The prosecution alleged that the ACB conducted a trap on November 27, 2002, where A-2 was caught receiving the amount on the instructions of A-1. The appellants challenged their conviction on the grounds of procedural illegality and a plausible defense regarding lorry hire charges.

The primary question before the court was whether an FIR registered subsequent to the trap proceedings is valid under Section 154 CrPC and whether the resulting investigation is sustainable. The court also examined whether the evidence on record probabilized the defense plea that the recovered amount was towards legitimate hire charges for lorries engaged to transport essential commodities.

FIR Must Precede Investigation Under Section 154 CrPC

The Court meticulously analyzed the timeline provided by the prosecution and the admissions made by the witnesses during cross-examination. It noted a glaring inconsistency between the testimony of the complainant (P.W-1) and the ACB officials (P.W-5 and P.W-6) regarding when the complaint was first reported and when the FIR was registered.

While the ACB claimed the FIR was registered on November 26, 2002, at 06:00 p.m., the complainant admitted he only signed the statement and other documents on the evening of November 27, 2002, after the trap proceedings were completed. The Court found that the FIR (Ex.P-15) actually reached the Special Court only on November 28, which supported the defense contention that the documents were backdated.

Court Slams 'Table Investigation' By ACB Officials

The Bench observed that the facts established a classic case of "table investigation," where the police agency conducts the entire operation first and then creates the documentary framework to suit the prosecution's narrative later at the office. Justice Chakravarthi noted that P.W-5 had transgressed and abused the power of investigation by preparing the complaint (Ex.P-7) and the FIR (Ex.P-15) after the trap was concluded.

The Court emphasized that any statement recorded after the commencement of the investigation is hit by Section 162 of the CrPC and cannot be treated as an FIR. The Bench held that such proceedings are illegal and any conviction based on them cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.

"Undoubtedly FIR in the case is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. Investigation based on it, abridge the rights of the accused under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Hence, any conviction based on such proceedings is not sustainable in law."

Application of the T.T. Antony Precedent

The High Court relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others (2001) to reiterate that the FIR is a vital document that sets the criminal law in motion. The Bench noted that the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen to fresh investigations or procedural shortcuts that bypass the mandatory requirements of Section 154 CrPC.

Defense Plea Regarding Lorry Hire Charges Found Probable

Turning to the merits of the demand and acceptance, the Court found the defense plea highly plausible. The evidence disclosed that the complainant (P.W-1) owned only one lorry but had to complete 120 trips a month to meet the department's targets. Consequently, A-1 had assisted in hiring private lorries (D.W-1 and D.W-2) to transport the goods.

The Court noted that P.W-1 admitted in cross-examination that these private lorries were indeed used and that he had prepared bills as if he alone had transported the goods. The Bench found that the trial court's rejection of this defense was "perverse" and ignored material evidence. It held that the amount paid to A-2 was likely the hire charges due to the vehicle owners, rather than a bribe.

"The facts and circumstances would probable the plea of defense that amount relates to hire. In those circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that A-2 received the amount towards bribe amount is not sustainable on facts."

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to both procedural illegalities and a strong defense, the High Court allowed the appeals. The Court set aside the conviction of A-1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and the conviction of A-2 under Section 12 of the P.C. Act. Both appellants were acquitted of all charges.

The judgment reaffirms the necessity of strict adherence to the CrPC during corruption probes. By labeling the post-trap registration of FIRs as "table investigation," the Court has sent a clear message to investigating agencies that procedural safeguards are not mere formalities but essential components of the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of India.

Date of Decision: May 5, 2026