Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

1. All these four cases which have been referred to Division Bench, have beet heard together as a common question of law arises in them, namely, as to whether the Delhi Special Police Establishment, commonly known as C.B.I., had any authority to investigate the cases instituted against the petitioners of these cases for offences alleged to have been committed by them under different clauses of Sec. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and some sections of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the said Police Establishment had no legal authority in this regard in the absence of a legal consent by the State Government as required under Sec. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946). All these cases are being disposed of herewith. All the cases against petitioners J. N. Sahay, S.K. Bhattacharjee and K. K. Malhotra along with various other accused persons are pending for trial in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I, (South Bihar), Patna. The petitioners at different stages of the proceedings on different dates made applications before the said trial Judge for dropping the proceedings and discharging them, on the plea that the cognizance of the cases against them was invalid being based on the charge sheets submitted by an illegal investigating agency and as such the trial could not proceed in law.

2. I may now very briefly indicate the facts of the cases in relation to the petitioners in all these applications, J.N. Sahay.-He was an Assistant Electrical Engineer (Technical), in the Bihar State Electricity Board and at the relevant time, i. e., in the year 1969, was posted at Bhagalpur in the Electric Works Division. On 1-1-1969 a first information report was lodged by Shri J. P. Sharma, S.P./C. B.I./ S.P.E./C. I.A. XI, New Delhi, alleging that he and various other officers, in criminal conspiracy with each other, had committed various offences punishable under various provisions of Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code, during the period of 1964 to 1967. It appears that two cases were registered before the learned Special Judge and after a protracted investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 10-3-75 and cognizance was taken on 14-3-75 in both the cases, giving rise to two applications tiled by him. On 5-5-78 this petitioner filed separate petitions in both the cases to the effect that before the charges were framed against him, he should be heard on the legal question indicated above, namely, the absence of a legal consent under Sec. 6 of the 1946 Act and the learned Judge by the impugned orders passed on the same day (22-5-79), following the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tarak Nath Roy V/s. State of Bihar 1979 B.B.C.J. 61, held that although the consent was "not legal and proper as observed by" this Court in the above case, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to him on account of the investigation in question and accordingly he ordered for framing of charges on the next date fixed. The petitioner has accordingly come to this Court against these orders. K.K. Malhotra.-This petitioner was an officer in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad, a public undertaking, wholly owned and managed by the Government of India. A first information report was lodged on 25-11-75 by Shri N. N. Singh, Inspector of D.S.P.E. against him and six other persons for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and some provisions of Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge sheet was, however, submitted only against three persons including this petitioner on 1-4-77 and cognizance was taken on the same date. Charges were framed on 10-3-79 by the Special Judge. On discharging him on same and similar grounds as done by the other petitioner, but the learned Judge by his order dated 5-7-79 rejected the petition taking the view that apart from the fact that the objection was bela