The withdrawal of consent by the State does not affect existing cases, and the CBI can proceed with the investigation. The Central Government/CBI's power to investigate and prosecute its own officials cannot be impeded by the State, even if the offenses were committed within the territory of the State.

JUDGMENT

Rajasekhar Mantha, J. - A complaint was filed by the Central Government against the Petitioners with the CBI alleging omissions and commissions against the petitioners. Pursuant thereto the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Kolkata registered an FIR on the 19th day of November, 2019, vide no. R. C. Case No. 0102018A0012, under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC") read with Section 7, 13(2), 13 (1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "PC Act"), alleging that :

i. ITRs filed for the assessment year 2012-2018

a. by Petitioner No. 1, viz., Ramesh Chandra Singh declared his income to the tune of Rs. 59, 21, 306/- &

b. by Petitioner No. 2, Sangita Singh, W/O Petitioner No. 1, declared her income to 27, 43, 187/-

ii. Petitioner No. 1 has amassed huge assets in his name and in the name of family that is disproportionate to his own sources of income

iii. On 1st day of April, 2012, Petitioner No. 1 was possessor of asset worth 19, 24, 662/- and on 28th day of June, 2018 he is alleged to be possessor of asset worth 1, 36, 63, 175/-, which is inclusive of an apartment, his bank deposits and post-office investments

iv. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have expended an educational-expenditure worth Rs. 25, 73, 769/- towards his children

v. A summation of his expenditures and assets hence tantamount to a sum worth Rs. 1,43,12,282/- which is disproportionate to the total income.

2. The Government of West Bengal, Home and Hill Department at Nabanna has issued a Notification No. 450/HS/PA/18 dated 16.11.2018 whereby the State has withdrawn the standing consent accorded U/s. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 vide G.O. No. 6145- PL/PE/2A/10/88 dated 02.08.1989 to all the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI in this case) to exercise the powers & jurisdiction under the DSPE Act in the State of West Bengal.

3. The Petitioners have moved this application U/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the said FIR.

i. Permission under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ("DSPE" Act, 1946) having been withdrawn by the State of West Bengal on 06.11.2018 the CBI cannot investigate the offence.

ii. The CBI investigation is, therefore, illegal as it has no jurisdiction to investigate on a subject matter that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government.

iii. Entry 2 of List II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India confers exclusive Jurisdiction on the State with regard to policing. Such exclusive jurisdiction of a state cannot be encroached upon by the centre on the CBI.

4. The State has chosen not to participate in the instant proceedings. It is therefore presumed that the State does not have anything to say in the matter or oppose the investigation by the CBI against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed Section 6 of the DSPE Act1946 to assail the FIR lodged by the CBI on the basis of a legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" (foundation being removed, the structure falls.). It is contended that since the State has withdrawn the blanket permission granted to the Central Government to initiate the proceedings the FIR is itself illegal and all subsequent & proceedings would be null and void.

6. Counsel for the petitioner argues that Entry 2 of List II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India confers exclusive Jurisdiction on the State in matter of policing. It is only with the express consent of the State that the CBI can investigate and prosecute any person within the territory of the State. He further submits that the object of permission under Section 6 of the DSPE Act read with Article 246 of the Constitution is to preserve the federal structure of the Constitution.

7. In the Affidavit-In-Opposition and in a supplementary affidavit the CBI would urge that the official communication of the withdrawal of consent under S. 6 of the DS