JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Kumar Avinav – Petitioner
versus
Union of India Th. Commissioner/
Secretary to Government Ministry
of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Ors. – Respondents
CRMC No.29 of 2016 IA Nos.01 of 2016, 01 of 2018 CrlM No.1255 of 2021 c/w CRMC No.64 of 2018 IA No.2 of 2018 CrlM No.1256 of 2021 IA No.1 of 2018 CRMC No.106 of 2017 CrlM No.852 of 2022 CrlM No.1257 of 2021 CrlM No.989 of 2019 CRMC No.63 of 2018 IA No.2 of 2018 CrlM No. 1260 of 2021 IA No.1 of 2018 IA No.3 of 2018 CRMC No.209 of 2018 CrlM No.709 of 2019 IA No.1 of 2018 CRMC No. 216 of 2018 CrlM No.1259 of 2021 IA No.1 of 2018 CRMC No.217 of 2018 CrlM No.1258 of 2021 IA No.1 of 2018 OWP No.990 of 2018 IA No.1 of 2018 CRM(M) No.281 of 2020 CrlM No.1087 of 2020 CrlM No.1086 of 2020 (Disposed) CrlM No.1343 of 2022 (Srinagar Wing Cases)
OWP No.1266 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2015 c/w OWP No.1126 of 2013 IA No.1580 of 2013 OWP No.1136 of 2013 IA No.1592 of 2013 OWP No.131 of 2014 IA No.152 of 2014 OWP No.133 of 2014 IA No.154 of 2014 OWP No.531 of 2014 IA No.691 of 2014 OWP No.1633 of 2014 IA No.2100 of 2014 OWP No.1944 of 2014 IA No.2529 of 2014 OWP No.603 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2015 OWP No.1264 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2015 OWP No.1859 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2015 OWP No.1902 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2015 OWP No.51 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.106 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.288 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.338 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.418 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.449 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.456 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.662 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.663 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 OWP No.675 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 CRR No.83 of 2010 IA No.59 of 2010 IA No.60 of 2014 CRR No.84 of 2010 IA No.60 of 2010 IA No.59 of 2014 CRR No.57 of 2012 IA No.51 of 2012 CRMC No.260 of 2013 IA No.313 of 2013 CRMC No.88 of 2014 IA No.105 of 2014 CRMC No.505 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2018 CRMC No.553 of 2015 CRMC No.634 of 2015 IA No.2 of 2015 IA No.1 of 2015 CRMC No.460 of 2016 IA No.1 of 2016 CRMC No.184 of 2017 IA No.1 of 2017 CRMC No.215 of 2017 IA No.1 of 2017 CRMC No.216 of 2017 IA No.1 of 2017 CRMC No.225 of 2017 IA No.1 of 2017 CRMC No.226 of 2017 IA No.1 of 2017 CRMC No.378 of 2017 IA No.1 of 2017 CRMC No.18 of 2018 IA No.1 of 2018 (JAMMU WING CASES)
Decided on 2.2.2023
(A) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate offences – Even if there is an order under Section 5 issued by Central Government extending powers of CBI to a particular State, still then said order will not enable CBI to exercise its powers in that State unless there is a consent of concerned State Government accorded in terms of Section 6 of Act – Consent can be either prior to issuance of order under Section 5 or it can be obtained after issuance of said order – Only requirement is that there has to be consent of State Government for an order under Section 5 of Act to take effect so as to enable CBI to undertake investigation in that particular State – Statute does not intend according of consent under Section 6 of Act at any particular stage or in any particular order – Consent of State Government can be accorded at any stage, even when extension of jurisdiction of CBI to the State is still under contemplation. (Paras 17 and 20)
(B) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate offences committed within territorial jurisdiction of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir prior to its bifurcation into two Union Territories – Mere filing of affidavits in Court proceedings by officers of State Government contending that there was no general consent given by State Government would not nullify effect of communications already addressed by competent authorities of State Government to Government of India according consent to jurisdiction of CBI to investigate certain offences in State of Jammu and Kashmir – Filing of affidavits in Court proceedings or conveying answers to RTI queries without actually communicating to Government of India that consent has been modified or rescinded, does not mean that these letters of consent ceased to have effect – Letters of consent dated 7th May, 1958 and 18th December, 1963 continued to remain in force on relevant dates – Letter of consent issued by State Government remains valid until it is withdrawn in the manner provided under Article 166(2) of Constitution and same remains valid in respect of offences to which consent pertains – Central Bureau of Investigation has jurisdiction to investigate offences mentioned in the two consent letters read with Notification dated 01.04.1964 and Order dated 01.04.1964. (Paras 25, 26 and 35)
Result: Reference answered.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Dhar, J.—A common question of law as to whether the Central Bureau of Investigation is vested with jurisdiction to investigate offences committed within the territorial jurisdiction of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir prior to its bifurcation into two Union Territories, has arisen in all these petitions. Besides laying challenge on the ground of jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate the offences, certain other grounds of challenge to the prosecution launched by Central Bureau of Investigation against the petitioners, which are peculiar to individual cases have also been raised by the petitioners. The petitions have been clubbed together on account of the fact that a common question of law has arisen as regards the jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate offences committed in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, as such for the present, by virtue of this judgment/order, it is proposed to deal with the said question of law only.
2. It has been contended by learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that the Central Bureau of Investigation lacks jurisdiction to investigate the FIRs which have been impugned in these petitions because no consent in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as DSPE Act) has been accorded by the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir to the investigation of the instant cases. According to the petitioners, the Central Bureau of Investigation, before undertaking investigation of the impugned FIRs, was bound to obtain consent of the State Government in individual cases in terms of Section 6 of the DSPE Act and because the same has not been done, as such, the CBI lacks inherent jurisdiction to investigate the impugned FIRs and to file challan against the petitioners. It is also contended that notifications/orders in terms of Sections 3, 5 and 6 of DSPE Act are required to be issued in the same order in which these provisions have been incorporated in the Act, meaning thereby that in the first instance there has to be a notification under Section 3 which should be followed by an order under Section 5 and finally there has to be consent of the State Government in terms of Section 6 of the DSPE Act. It is contended that in the instant case, even if it is assumed that notifications/orders/consent have been issued by the relevant authorities, the same has not been done in the aforesaid order, which goes on to show that the provisions of DSPE Act have been observed in breach. It is also contended that under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act the offences are required to be investigated by the officers of Vigilance Organization, as such, the members of the CBI are not authorized to investigate offences under the aforesaid Act.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also the learned Advocate General, who has put forward the stand of the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir on the issue.
4. Before dealing with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be apt to trace out the legislative history of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of J.N. Sahay V/s State of Bihar, 1982 Cri LJ 410 has traced out the legislative history of the aforesaid Act. While doing so the Division Bench has observed as under:—
“7. As an aftermath of outbreak of the World War II, various unscrupulous and anti-social persons, both official and non-officials, indulged in activities enriching themselves dishonestly at the cost of public and Government. The Government of India accordingly set up a central organisation for investigating offences relating to such transactions and the Delhi Special Police Establishment was set up in 1941 by an executive order under the administration
Jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate offences – Consent of State Government can be accorded at any stage, even when extension of jurisdiction of CBI to the State is still un....
The erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir has accorded general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act for the exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI to investigate certain offences in the State of Jammu....
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....
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 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.
Lack of sanction for prosecution is not always fatal to case of prosecution.
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....
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 state government is constitutionally empowered to grant or withdraw consent for the investigation of offences by the central investigative agency within its territory. The power to grant consent ....
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.