The powers of the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 are distinct from those of the regular police under the CrPC, and the registration of FIRs by the CBI in terms of its Manual is valid, even if the FIRs are not registered at a police station notified by the State of West Bengal.

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. All the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment and order as they involve the same question of law.

2. In all these appeals the trial judge prior to conclusion of trial by judgment and orders dated 14.12.2012 (in R.C. Case No. 27 of 2008), 21.12.2012 (in R.C. Case No. 46 of 1997, 22.03.2013 (in R.C. Case No. 22(A) of 2006, 06.12.2013 (in R.C. Case No. 30 of 2003) and 31.01.2013 (in R.C. Case No. 40 of 2005) acquitted the opposite parties of the charges levelled against them on the premise that the Central Bureau of Investigation had not registered first information report at any police station duly notified by the State of West Bengal under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Although the aforesaid issue had been answered by me in Binod Kumar Kabra v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 2 C Cr.LR (Cal) 693, learned counsels for the appellants submitted that various aspects of the matter had not been considered in the said report and such issues require to be heard out at length. Accordingly, I adjourned the matter for further hearing till today.

4. Mr. Sudipta Moitra, learned senior counsel with Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in G.A. 8 of 2014 submitted that commencement of a valid investigation must be preceded by registration of a first information report at a police station notified under Section 2(s) of the Code. As the first information report has not been registered in any police station notified in the State of West Bengal under the Code, the investigation and prosecution ensuing there from are illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, the order of acquittal did not call for interference.

5. In support of his contention he has relied on the following decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P., Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 C Cr. LR (SC) 116, State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401, Dr. S.M. Kaligudd v.State of Karnataka, 1998 Cri L.J. 1183, Srimanta Manna v. The State, AIR 1960 Cal 519 and Sharanappa v. State of Karnataka, 2016 Cri L.J. 764.

6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in G.A. No. 9 of 2014, G.A. No. 10 of 2014 and G.A. 12 of 2014 adopted the argument of Mr. Moitra. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in G.A. 8 of 2014 also submitted that as the FIR was not registered at a police station duly notified under the Code, consequential investigation was illegal and the trial court was wholly within its jurisdiction to acquit the accused person.

7. Mr. Ali, learned advocate for the appellants has relied on a decision in State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai v. N.S. Gnaneswaran, (2013) 3 SCC 594 and submitted that such issue is no longer res integra in view of the aforesaid authority. He further submitted that the ratio in N.S. Gnaneswaran (supra) has further been approved by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2014 Cri L.J. 470.

8. In reply, Mr. Moitra argued that in N.S. Gnaneswaran (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that the investigation is rendered illegal due to non registration of first information report at a police station. He further argued that in the said report the issue which cropped up was non supply of copy of the first information report to the informant and the present controversy did not fall for decision in the said report.

9. The issue which falls for decision in these appeals is whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused persons on the ground that the first information report in the aforesaid cases had not been registered at a police station notified by the State of West Bengal under Section 2(s) of the Code. It is undisputed that Central Bureau of Investigation had authority to investigate the offences in the instant case. It is also not in dispute that first information report was drawn up by an offic