Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Union Bank Of India, A Body Corporate Constituted Under The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, Represented By Its Regional Head J. Mahesha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Chief Secretary, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. Nagaprasanna, J.)
The petitioner/Union Bank of India is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3/the State and its wings to transfer and entrust the investigation in Crime No.118 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 149, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC to the 5th respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for short).
2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
This petition is preferred by the Union Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The backdrop to the filing of the present petition is that the 6th respondent/Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited (‘the Corporation’ for short), a Government of Karnataka undertaking had held its Savings Bank (‘SB’) account in a branch of Union Bank of India at Vasanthnagar, Bangalore. 6th respondent represented by its Managing Director and the Accounts Officer are said to have instructed the Bank to transfer the said SB account into M.G. Road Branch of the Bank. Considering the request
Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act does not empower banks to request the transfer of investigations to the CBI, as this would violate the provisions of the DSPE Act.
The Reserve Bank of India's guidelines do not confer jurisdiction upon the CBI to investigate bank fraud without prior state consent as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
The RBI's imposition of directives under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act does not necessitate pre-decisional hearings, emphasizing the need for depositor protection over procedural formalit....
The ACB in Rajasthan can investigate and file charges against Central Government employees for corruption if committed within state jurisdiction, despite CBI’s authority.
Withdrawal of state consent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act affects CBI's authority; ongoing investigations are subject to jurisdictional approval.
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 ....
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....
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....
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
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
