Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J.
A.S. Chandra Sekhar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P. – Respondent
W.P.No.1999 of 2020
Decided on : 20-03-2020
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7-A – Corruption Charge– Petitioner before this Court is an Income Tax Officer –It is stated that the 4th respondent was demanded a bribe by petitioner – 4th respondent approached the 3rd respondent, informed him about the demand for bribe and the same was communicated to his superior – F.IR was registered under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – A trap was also laid and executed – Held, Court finds that there is a bar under the concerned Act to the institution and the continuation of proceedings, because section 5 r/w section 6 of the DSPE Act make it very very clear that the power of the DSPE within the boundaries of a State can only be exercised with the express consent of the State Government – Court is constrained to hold that in view of the clear law cited that the DSPE, CBI did not have the jurisdiction to register the case at all, let alone investigate – Writ Petition Allowed (Paras 17, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
As per the averments in the affidavit, it is stated that the 4th respondent was demanded a bribe by the petitioner. The 4th respondent approached the 3rd respondent, informed him about the demand for bribe and the same was communicated to his superior. Thereafter, F.IR No.3/RCT-ACB-GNT dated 29.04.2019 was registered under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). A trap was also laid and executed. Questioning the said actions, the present writ petition is filed.
Findings of The court:
Court finds that there is a bar under the concerned Act to the institution and the continuation of proceedings, because section 5 r/w section 6 of the DSPE Act make it very very clear that the power of the DSPE within the boundaries of a State can only be exercised with the express consent of the State Government – Court is constrained to hold that in view of the clear law cited that the DSPE, CBI did not have the jurisdiction to register the case at all, let alone investigate
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:
2. Petitioner before this Court is an Income Tax Officer. As per the averments in the affidavit, it is stated that the 4th respondent was demanded a bribe by the petitioner. The 4th respondent approached the 3rd respondent, informed him about the demand for bribe and the same was communicated to his superior. Thereafter, F.IR No.3/RCT-ACB-GNT dated 29.04.2019 was registered under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). A trap was also laid and executed. Questioning the said actions, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The sum and substance of the submission of the petitioner is that on 29.04.2019, the CBI did not have the jurisdiction or the authority to function within the State of Andhra Pradesh since the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.176 Home (SC.A) Department dated 08.11.2018 had withdrawn the general consent given to the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI). It is mentioned in the writ petition that as the consent was not there, the case was transferred to respondent No.2, who registered another FIR on 30.04.2019. Lastly, it is submitted that on 27.11.2019, the Government of Andhra Pradesh gave powers to the CBI to act within the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.154 Home (SC.) Department and accordingly the case was transferred back to the CBI.
4. This Court has heard Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, standing counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and also the standing counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the land mark decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, and the decisions in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 116, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 (5) SCC 749, M.Balakrishna Reddy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, 2008 (4) SCC 409 and lastly upon Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299. Relying on these cases, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this Court should exercise its power to quash all further proceedings.
6. He agrees that on the date on which the FIR was registered, respondent No.3 did not have the jurisdiction or the power to act within the boundaries of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Relying upon section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short ‘the DSPE Act”) which deals with the consent of a State, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Act was enacted for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Officers to certain areas only. Relying upon section 6 of the DSPE Act, he argues that no member of the DSPE can act in a State without the consent of the State. Relying upon the judgments passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.3156 and 3158 of 2016 and also Crl.P.Nos.2906, 2932 and 2950 of 2019, the learned counsel argues that the exercise of power itself is inherently flawed and non-est and therefore, as per him this is a fit case to quash all further proceedings.
7. On behalf of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the counter affi
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
