Back
High Court Of Delhi
SURINDER SINGH AHLUWALIA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT - Respondent
Civil 1844 of 1988
Decided On : 02/01/1991
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5(1)(E) - DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1946 - SECTION 5 & 6 - INVESTIGATION - JURISDICTION - CONSENT - WITHDRAWAL - FIR - QUASHING - WRIT PETITION - ARTICLE 226 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - APPLICABILITY OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - NAGALAND - APPLICABILITY OF RULES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND APPEALS IN NAGA HILLS DISTRICT, 1937 - SPIRIT OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - INVESTIGATION BY CBI - POWERS AND JURISDICTION - COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - INVESTIGATION BY CBI - INTERFERENCE BY COURT - JURISDICTION OF COURT - INHERENT POWERS - SECTION 482 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, challenged the FIR registered by Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the investigation pursuant to the said FIR. The petitioner contended that there was no consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), and there never was any consent by the Government of Nagaland. The petitioner also attacked the general consent dated 8-11-67 on the ground that there was no schedule annexed with the letter of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. The petitioner further contended that the allegations made in the FIR were not co-related to Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the general consent dated 8-11-67 was valid and in pursuance of the said consent, the CBI conducted investigation for the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the offences under the said Act find mention in the schedule at item no. 2 annexed to the consent letter of the Government of Nagaland dated 8-11-1967. The court further held that the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a cognizable offence and when in relation to a cognizable offence, FIR has been registered, then the CBI is competent to investigate the offence not only in respect of the commission of the offence in the State of Nagaland but also at Delhi and other places and there are clear and categorical allegations mentioned in the FIR constituting the offence under Section 5(1)(e). The court also held that the FIR correlate with the offence under Section 5(1)(e). The court further held that the investigation is the stage of crime detection and the role of judiciary is not to interfere in the investigation unless there is miscarriage of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the general consent dated 8-11-67 was valid and in pursuance of the said consent, the CBI conducted investigation for the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 2. Whether the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a cognizable offence and when in relation to a cognizable offence, FIR has been registered, then the CBI is competent to investigate the offence not only in respect of the commission of the offence in the State of Nagaland but also at Delhi and other places? 3. Whether the FIR correlate with the offence under Section 5(1)(e)? 4. Whether the investigation is the stage of crime detection and the role of judiciary is not to interfere in the investigation unless there is miscarriage of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The general consent dated 8-11-67 was valid and in pursuance of the said consent, the CBI conducted investigation for the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the offences under the said Act find mention in the schedule at item no. 2 annexed to the consent letter of the Government of Nagaland dated 8-11-1967. 2. The offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a cognizable offence and when in relation to a cognizable offence, FIR has been registered, then the CBI is competent to investigate the offence not only in respect of the commission of the offence in the State of Nagaland but also at Delhi and other places and there are clear and categorical allegations mentioned in the FIR constituting the offence under Section 5(1)(e). 3. The FIR correlate with the offence under Section 5(1)(e). 4. The investigation is the stage of crime detection and the role of judiciary is not to interfere in the investigation unless there is miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner Shri Surinder Singh Ahiuwalia, at present the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, seeks to quash the FIR No. RC-1/ 87-ACU (1) dated 24-3-1987 registered by Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 5 (2) read lal Sec. 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the investigation pursuant to the said First Information Report.
( 2 ) WE may state a few relevant facts leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner was commissioned on 3-5-1964 as an Emergency Commission Officer in the Army when he was officiating Captain in the Army, be appeared in the Indian Administrative Service and other Central Government Services Competitive Examination held in 1968 by the Union Public Service Commission. The petitioner was inducted in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre having regard to his order of merit, and was allocated to the State of Nagaland. From 1971 to 1987, the petitioner served in various capacities as under:-
" (A) Under Secretary, Supply Department, Government of Nagaland-1971 (July-September ).
(B) Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kohima-1971 (Sept.-December ).
(C) Additional Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto- December, 1971-February, 1973.
(D) Director of Supplies, Government of Nagaland-February, 1973-October, 1974.
(E) Joint Secretary, Planning Department and Joint Development Commissioner, Nagaland-October, 1974 to June, 1975.
(F) Deputy Commissioner-Kohima District-June, 1975-December, 1976.
(G) Secretary to Government of Nagaland, Forest Department and Weights and Measures Department- December, 1976-June, 1978.
(H) Director, Police Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi-July, 1978__ August, 1979.
(I) Director in. the Policy Planning Division, Department of Personnel, and Administrative Reforms, New Delhi.
(J) Attended Diploma Course in Advanced Studies in Development Administration at the University of Manchester (U. K.)-September, 1980-June, 1981.
(K) Reposted as Director in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Training Division, June, 1981-March, 1984.
(1) Financial Commissioner and Finance Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Kohima-April, 1984-November, 1986.
(M) Transferred to the post of Commissioner and Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Nagaland, Kohima.
( 3 ) ON 4-12-1986, the Chief Minister Shri Hokisha Sema wrote a D. O. letter (Annexure A-l) to Shri P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of State for Home, regarding the questionable conduct relating to extortion of businessmen of Dimapur and transaction related to a hand loan of Rs. 60,000 and involvement in shoddy gunny bags transaction and in the conduct of State lotteries in the capacity as the Director of State lotteries. It was stated by him that Shri Ahluwalia is reported to have acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, some of such are, Air-conditioned cinema house in Agra, valuable residential property in F-5, South Extension Part II, New Delhi, in the name of Mrs. Kamaljit Walia and another residential property in W-7. Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi and some landed property in Gwalior and Chandigarh. It was also stated that in this regard a Memorandum no. 500724 dated 13-2-1985 from the Prime Minister s Office alleging corrupt practices by Shri Ahiuwalia did not evoke requisite response by predecessor Government, it was further stated in the letter that the Government of Nagaland does not have proper machinery to conduct thorough investigation into all the ramifications of the case, comprehensive enquiry by a well reputed investigative agency like the CBI is, therefore, absolutely necessary and the State Government, therefore, conveys its consent for investigation by the CBI. The letter was accompanied by the names and addresses of Nagaland lottery agents and also a note relating to the petitioner serving as Financial Commissioner of Nagaland at that time.
( 4 ) SUPERINTE
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
