Back
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Sunil Kumar Mall S/o Late Shyam Sunder Mall – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the order dated 1-2-2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases, Raipur (CG), in Special Case No. 53 of 2012 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946(for short, DSPE Act, 1946”) for discharge of the accused for offence punishable under Sections 120-B & 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been rejected and the learned Special Court has fixed the matter for prosecution evidence on 08.03.2021.
2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the final report was registered on 30-7-2012 against the applicant and other accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 120-B & 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein it has been alleged that the case is registered on the basis of source information received against Shri Surendera Singhai, the then Regional Chief, HUDCO, Raipur wherein it has been mentioned tha
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.
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....
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 ....
Lack of sanction for prosecution is not always fatal to case of prosecution.
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 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....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the CBI has the authority to investigate in Railway areas within a state, even after the withdrawal of consent by the State Government, ba....
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 ....
The court affirmed that the CBI cannot operate in a State without prior consent post-withdrawal, emphasizing the constitutional principle of federalism and the legal rights of States under Article 13....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
