Back
2008(2) Supreme 665
Supreme Court of india
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
C.K. Thakker & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
M. Balakrishna Reddy — Petitioner
versus
Director, CBI, New Delhi — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 491 of 2008
Decided on : 14-03-2008
(b)Constitution of India – Section 166 – The provision is directory and not mandatory – The communication need not be made directly by the authority making the order – It may be through recognized channels prescribed by the administrative rules of business – It amounts to substantial compliance and would suffice. (Paras 28, 32, 38 and 51)
1952 SCR 756; 1952 SCR 612; 1952 SCR 674; (1955) 1 SCR 1011; (1969) 3 SCC 775; (1996) 2 SCC 26; (2003) 5 SCC 134 – Relied upon.
(1962) 3 SCR 713; (2006) 7 SCC 188 – Distinguished.
(1987) 3 SCC 34 – Referred.
(c)Judicial Review – Where certain conditions precedent have to be satisfied before an authority may pass an order, it is not necessary that the satisfaction of those conditions should be recited in the order itself unless the statute specifically requires it – Absence of the recital on the face of the order will not make it illegal or void ab initio. (Para 40)
(1962) 1 SCR 422 – Relied upon.
(d)Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6 – The law requires only a valid general consent. (Para 42)
(1962) 2 SCR 195 – Relied upon.
(e)Constitution of India – Article 77 – It relates to conduct of business of the Government of India and is couched in terms similar to those in Art. 166 – Therefore the same principles must govern the interpretation of that provision. (Para 47)
(1962) 2 SCR 195; (1964) 6 SCR 368 – Relied upon.
(f)Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6 – The decision of the State Government on record clearly sets out all the particulars required by Section 6 of the Delhi Act like the file/reference number, name of the department, the authority from whom it was issued and communicated to the concerned department of the Central Government – It, therefore, cannot be said that the State Government had not granted consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act. (Para 69)
Facts of the case:
1.The appellant herein appeared in the examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’ for short) in the year 1996. The appellant was found to be in possession of prewritten answer sheets which were similar to the answer sheets supplied by the Examination Board.
2.The matter was then reported to UPSC Head Office at New Delhi. A preliminary inquiry was instituted and on being prima facie satisfied about the allegations levelled, the Secretary, UPSC, lodged a Criminal Case against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 474, 467, 468 and 417 read with Section 511 IPC.
3.The learned Magistrate, by an order dated December 17, 2002 rejected the preliminary objection.
4.Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), which was dismissed.
Findings of the Court :
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
judgment
C.K. Thakker, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.The present appeal is filed against an order passed by Special Magistrate, CBI, Indore, Madhya Pradesh on December 17, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 1155 of 2002 and confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) on January 2, 2007 in Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2003.
3.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant herein appeared in the examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’ for short) in the year 1996 at Hamidiya Arts and Commerce College, Bhopal on November 1, 1996. It was alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of prewritten answer sheets which were similar, if not identical, to the answer sheets supplied by the Examination Board. The appellant was taken out of the hall and a statement was recorded in which he confessed to have prewritten answer sheets with him. The matter was then reported to UPSC Head Office at New Delhi. A preliminary inquiry was instituted and on being prima facie satisfied about the allegations levelled, the Secretary, UPSC, lodged a Criminal Case against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 474, 467, 468 and 417 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). A charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for short), Indore.
4.The appellant raised a preliminary objection contending that the alleged offences had been committed at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh and CBI had no power, authority or jurisdiction to institute criminal proceedings. It was also contended that before initiating proceedings under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Delhi Act’), consent of the State Government is required. No such consent had been given by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the proceedings initiated against the appellant by CBI were without jurisdiction.
5.The learned Magistrate, by an order dated December 17, 2002 rejected the preliminary objection. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), and as stated above, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition. The said order is challenged by the appellant by filing the present appeal.
6.On March 8, 2007, notice was issued by this Court. On August 6, 2007, the Registry was directed to place the matter for final hearing. That is how the matter has been placed before us.
7.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant raised several contentions. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in holding that the proceedings against the appellant could have been initiated by CBI. It was contended that the direction issued by the High Court was ex facie erroneous. When alleged offence was committed by the appellant in Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Police Authorities of the State alone could have initiated proceedings against the accused. It was also submitted that before invoking the provisions of the Delhi Act, consent of the State Government is mandatory and a condition precedent for the exercise of power. The provision as to consent of the State Government must be complied with in letter and spirit and such consent should be in proper form as required by law. Since the consent required under the Act is of the ‘State Government’, the prerequisites of Article 166 of the Constitution must be observed. If the procedure laid down in the said Article is not followed, the so called consent has no meaning. Such consent cannot be said to be legal, valid and in consonance with law and CBI does not get jurisdiction in the matter. It was also submitted that the High Court was wholly wrong in upholding the contention of CBI that it could have initiated prosecution since the alleged offence had been committed in conduct of UPSC Examination
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
