SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Ker) 493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
Kerala Cricket Association, Rep. by its Secretary T.N. Aananthanarayanan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India, rep. by The Secretary of The Home Department of The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 28031 of 2016
Decided On : 09-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.), Sri. K.N. Abhilash, Sri. Sunil Nair Palakkat, Sri. Sojan Micheal, Sri. Babu Thomas (Pazhayathottathil), Sri. M.A. Ahammad Saheer, Smt. K. Aasha, Smt. N.K. Sheeba.
For the Respondents: Sri. Manu S., CGC, Sri. P. Chandrasekhara Pillai, Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Spl.P.P., Sri. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General.

Headnote:Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, Sections 6 and 5 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 91 Sections 41, 91, 102, 157, 160, 161, 165 and 173 - There is no power vested with the CBI as to conduct the preliminary and primary inquiry as if the same is no consent of the state government as the police is not having authority unless it has not been held by the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

On 17.5.2016 the Secretary of the petitioner Kerala Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner Association) received Ext P1 notice from the third respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) requesting him to send the Association's constitution, balance sheet for a certain period, statement of bank accounts, details of projects, minutes of the general body meeting and central council meeting, audit reports and 'any other documents' related to the financial matters of the petitioner Association. The petitioner Association through its Advocate sent Ext P2 reply challenging the authority of the CBI to call for the documents. On 8.7.2016 in Ext P3 notice the CBI informed the Secretary of the petitioner Association that a preliminary enquiry was being conducted into the affairs of the petitioner Association. The CBI again asked him to send the documents already called for and to answer certain questions relating to the affairs of the petitioner Association. The CBI turned down the request of the petitioner Association to furnish a copy of the complaint. Again, the petitioner sent Ext P4 letter requesting the CBI to furnish a copy of the complaint. There was no response. Several reliefs have been prayed for in this writ petition. The main relief is that the proceedings in the preliminary enquiry which is being conducted by the third respondent CBI may be quashed.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Association and Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

3. The first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Association is that the CBI has no power even to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner Association since it has no power to conduct an investigation. He has invited my attention to Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which are quoted below:

5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police establishment to other areas-(1) The Central Government may by order extend to any area (including Railway areas) in a State, not being a Union territory the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under section 3.

(2) When by an order under sub-section (1) the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject of any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of a police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force.

(3) Where any such order under sub-section (1) is made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.

6. Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction-Nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.

4. The officers of the CBI which has been established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act have only those powers which have been conferred on












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top