Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL
State, Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
A. Satish Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(C.T. Ravikumar, J.)
1. The self-same appellant, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘the CBI’) calls in question the common judgment dated 13.04.2023 in W.P. Nos.26990 of 2021 and 5441 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Writ Petition No.26990 of 2021 was filed by the first respondent in the former appeal and Writ Petition No.5441 of 2022 was filed by the first respondent in the latter appeal. As observed by the High Court in the impugned common judgment, common question(s) of law arose for consideration in both the cases in identical circumstances and the High Court took W.P. No.26990 of 2022 as the lead case. Consequent to the consideration of the legal and factual position, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition and for the same reasoning allowed W.P. No.5441 of 2022 as per the impugned common judgment.
2. Before dealing with the precise question(s) of law involved in the captioned appeals, it is appropriate to refer, succinctly, to the factual background that ultimately led to the filing of the Writ Petitions and their culmination in the impugned common judgment, as under:-
FIR No.10 (A)/2017 was registered for offences under
CBI investigation – Govt. orders according general consent to exercise powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether acting separately or in conjunction ....
State consent under DSPE Act prior to FIR registration validates CBI investigation despite earlier preliminary verification; no quashing of proceedings post charge-sheet and cognizance absent miscarr....
Lack of sanction for prosecution is not always fatal to case of prosecution.
The court clarified that the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the case without specific consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and that the lack of specific consent did not result in a miscarriag....
The CBI does not require State consent for jurisdiction when the conspiracy is initiated outside the State, as established under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act.
Withdrawal of state consent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act affects CBI's authority; ongoing investigations are subject to jurisdictional approval.
The general consent given by the State Government for investigation of offences punishable under a specific act holds good for authorizing the investigative agency to investigate subsequent amendment....
(1) FIR – If, on a hyper-technical ground, FIRs are quashed, High Court is duty-bound to lay down law with respect to jurisdiction that otherwise exists.(2) When a Government Order is issued by way o....
The court affirmed that the CBI cannot operate in a State without prior consent post-withdrawal, emphasizing the constitutional principle of federalism and the legal rights of States under Article 13....
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
