SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.)
KAZI LHENDUP DORJI
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 313 of 1993{Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India}, decided on March 29, 1994
Advocates appeared
Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate (B.N. Agarwal, H.L. Bhandari and P.H. Parekh, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioner;
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General (Hemant Sharma and P. Parameswaran, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioner.
N. Santosh Hegde, Senior Advocate (Vepa P. Sarathi and K. Swami, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioner 3.
K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate (Rakesh K. Sharma, Shivi Sharma, P.R. Tiwari and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, Advocates, with him) for the Respondent 4.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120-B - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 173 - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) - General Clauses Act - Section 21 – Offence of Criminal conspiracy – Investigation - Withdrawal of consent - Constitution of a special police force for investigation of certain offences in Union Territories, for superintendence and administration of said force and for extension to other areas of powers and jurisdiction of members of said force in regard to investigation of said offences - DSPE constituted under said Act is now known as Central Bureau of Investigation - Powers and jurisdiction of members of said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may subject to any orders which Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge functions of a police officer in that area and shall while so discharging such functions be deemed to be a member of police force of that area and be vested with powers, functions and privileges and be subject to liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force –Held, writ petition Court find that after issuance of impugned notification inefforts were made by Central Government during period from to persuade Government to accord necessary consent and when said attempts failed, petitioner moved this Court - Therefore, even if Court proceed on basis that Section 21 of General Clauses Act is applicable to an order passed under Section 6 of Act, an order revoking an order giving consent under Section 6 of Act can have only prospective operation and would not affect matters in which action has been initiated prior to issuance of order of revocation - Impugned notification dated has to be construed in this light - If thus construed it would mean that investigation which was commenced by CBI prior to withdrawal of consent under impugned notification dated - In other words CBI was competent to complete the investigation in cases registered by it against Respondent 4 and other persons and submit report in competent court - On that view of matter, it is not necessary to go into question whether provisions of Section 21 of General Clauses Act can be invoked in relation to consent given under Section 6 of Act - Writ petition is therefore allowed.
Judgment
S.C. AGRAWAL, J.- This writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution raises the question whether it is permissible to withdraw the consent given by the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby a member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) was enabled to exercise powers and jurisdiction for the investigation of the specified offences in any area in the State and, if so, what is the effect of such withdrawal of consent on matters pending investigation on the basis of such consent on the date of withdrawal.
2. The Act was enacted to make provision for the constitution of a special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the Union Territories, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences. DSPE constituted under the said Act is now known as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Sections 5 and 6 of the Act read as under:
"5. (1) The Central Government may by order extend to any area (including Railway areas) in a State, not being a Union Territory the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under Section 3.
(2) When by an order under sub-section (1) the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of the police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force.
(3) Where any such order under sub-section (1) is made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer-in-charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.
6. Nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State."
3. By his letter dated 20-10-1976, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Sikkim conveyed the consent of the Government of Sikkim under Section 6 of the Act to the members of the DSPE in exercising powers and jurisdiction on the whole of the State of Sikkim for the investigation of the offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code specified therein as well as offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Similar consent in respect of offences under other enactments was conveyed by letter of the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, dated 10-7-1979 and the orders of the Government of Sikkim dated 24-12-1983, 28-6-1984 and 10-12-1984.
4. Respondent 4 was the Chief Minister of Sikkim during the period 1979 to 1984. He ceased to be the Chief Minister on 11-5-1984. On 26-5-1984, a case [RC.5/84-CIU(A)] was registered by the CBI for offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegations, in brief, were that Respondent 4, while ac
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.