Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Kanwal Tanuj - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 879 of 2018
Decided On : 17-09-2018
P.K. Shahi, Adv., Y.S. Lohit, Adv., Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Raj Nandan Prasad, Adv., Suman Kumar Jha, Adv., Raghavacharyulu, Adv., Bipin Kumar Sinha, Adv., Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Headnote:
Whether the consent of the State Government is required for the CBI to investigate the offences alleged in the FIR, where the B.R.B.C.L. is a subsidiary company of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC Ltd.) and NTPC Ltd. is a public sector undertaking of the Central Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), challenged the FIR registered against him by the CBI for alleged corruption and siphoning of government funds in connection with the acquisition of land for a power plant project of B.R.B.C.L. The petitioner argued that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to investigate the matter without the consent of the State Government, as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the matter without the consent of the State Government. The Court found that B.R.B.C.L. was a subsidiary company of NTPC Ltd., which was a public sector undertaking of the Central Government. The Court also found that the alleged offences were in connection with the affairs of the Central Government and its Public Sector undertaking, and therefore, the consent of the State Government was not required.
Issues: 1. Whether the CBI required the consent of the State Government to investigate the offences alleged in the FIR. 2. Whether B.R.B.C.L. was a company owned or controlled by the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the CBI did not require the consent of the State Government to investigate the offences alleged in the FIR. The Court found that the offences were in connection with the affairs of the Central Government and its Public Sector undertaking, and therefore, the consent of the State Government was not required. 2. The Court held that B.R.B.C.L. was a company owned or controlled by the Central Government. The Court found that NTPC Ltd., which was a public sector undertaking of the Central Government, held a majority of the shares in B.R.B.C.L. and that the management of B.R.B.C.L. was controlled by NTPC Ltd.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and held that the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the matter without the consent of the State Government.
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. The extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service (in short I.A.S.) for the following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing the FIR bearing R.C. A.C.-I, 2018A 0002 dt. 21.02.2018 giving rise to Special Case no. 01/18 / 02/18 lodged at C.B.I., AC-I, New Delhi under Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending in the court of Special Judge-III, AHD, Patna as the allegations made in the F.I.R. does not discloses any criminal offence;
(ii) For declaration that the present F.I.R. which has been lodged against the petitioner being a Government Servant in Bihar without permission of the State Government is in violation of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the D.S.P.E. Act) and as such wholly without jurisdiction being void ab initio and hence, liable to be quashed and as such no investigation could be proceeded;
(iii) For restraining the respondents from taking any coercive measure against the petitioner; and/or for any other reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
Brief Facts of the Case
2. The allegations contained in Annexure- 'A' to the F.I.R. are briefly stated as under:-
(i) The petitioner during his tenure as District Magistrate, Aurangabad has allegedly connived with the Chief Executive Officer of Bhartiya Rail Bijli Company Ltd. (in short hereinafter referred to as B.R.B.C.L.), Nabinagar and other unknown officers/officials of the B.R.B.C.L., local district administration and one Sri Gopal Prasad Singh (now deceased). It is alleged that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy this petitioner got false document of Khata No. 12, Plot No. 1 of Mauja Karjain prepared in respect of one Sri Gopal Prasad Singh son of Late Keshav Prasad Singh, resident of Nabinagar, District Aurangabad (Bihar). Some false receipts of Lagan for the period 1988-89 to 2016-17 and some other related papers, returns of the above land shown to have been purchased from Sri Mukund Lal (Jamindar), who was never a Jamindar (Landlord) of the area were prepared and submitted to claim compensation in the name of Sri Gopal Prasad Singh.
(ii) It is further alleged that this petitioner fraudulently directed that 7.45 acres land in Khata No. 12, Plot No. 1 of Mauja Karjain be recorded in the name of Sri Gopal Prasad Singh, (now deceased) and the matter may be further processed accordingly. Circle Officer, Nabinagar sent a Letter No. 74 dated 11.03.2017 to the Chief Executive Officer, B.R.B.C.L. for purchasing of the land from the owner Sri Gopal Prasad Singh. The Circle Officer, Nabinagar, thereafter issued another letter dated 25.03.2017 to B.R.B.C.L. recalling his previous letter dated 22.06.2015 and informed that 7.45 acres, out of the total land in Khata No. 12, Plot No. 1 of Mauja Karjain has been registered in the name of Sri Gopal Prasad Singh. The Circle Officer further informed B.R.B.C.L. that 6.545 acres falling in the Ashdyke area in the above mentioned plot was being earmarked/acquired for the B.R.B.C.L. and directed the B.R.B.C.L. to purchase the said land from the owner Sri Gopal Prasad Singh and 0.905 acres of the government land was being transferred to B.R.B.C.L. for the purpose of the plant.
(iii) The allegation is that as per procedure, when B.R.B.C.L. officials along with other officers visited the site on 12.04.2017 for taking possession of the aforesaid land, the claimant Gopal Prasad Singh allegedly could not identify his own land and many villagers who gathered there opposed that the said land was not owned by Sri Gopal Prasad Singh. In this regard video C.D. was also prepared at the spot. In furtherance of the conspiracy, vide letter no. 17070 dated 26.05.2017 this petitioner directed B.R.B.C.L. to make payment of compensation
