2001 Supreme(Raj) 1937
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
Ravi Shankar Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P. & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 93 of 2001.
Decided On : 4-12-2001
For the Appellant:Jagdeep Dhankhar, Sr. Advocate with H.S. Bhagela, Advocates.
For the C.B.I.:Anurag Kulshreshtra, Advocate.
For the C.B.I.:N.C. Choudhary, Advocate.
For the C.B.I.:Vijay Choudhary, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of general consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, for the C.B.I. to have jurisdiction in a state.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - C.B.I. - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 3, 5, 6 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the C.B.I. to register and investigate an F.I.R. in the State of Rajasthan under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It highlighted the provisions of Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Act, the notifications issued by the Government of Rajasthan, and the requirement of consent for C.B.I. to have jurisdiction in the state. The court found that there was no general consent available as required under Section 6 of the Act, and consequently, quashed the action of the C.B.I. in recording the F.I.R. and investigating the matter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an I.A.S. officer, moved a petition to quash an F.I.R. registered by the C.B.I. for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main contention was the jurisdiction of the C.B.I. to register the F.I.R. in the State of Rajasthan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no general consent available as required under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, enabling the C.B.I. to have jurisdiction in the State of Rajasthan. Consequently, the court quashed the action of the C.B.I. in recording the F.I.R. and investigating the matter.
Issues: The issues raised included the jurisdiction of the C.B.I. to register the F.I.R. in the State of Rajasthan, the requirement of consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, and the validity of the F.I.R. for initiating an investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of general consent required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, for the C.B.I. to have jurisdiction in the State of Rajasthan.
Final Decision: The court allowed the misc. petition and quashed the action of the C.B.I. in recording the F.I.R. and investigating the matter.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner, an I.A.S. officer of the Rajasthan cadre and presently posted as Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Plan and Director, PMU in the Department of Planning, has moved this criminal misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.PC. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 20(A) of 2000 registered by Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences u/s 120-B, 167, 168, 177, 177A I.PC. and 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The main contention being raised by the counsel for the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. is that C.B.I. had no jurisdiction to register the F.I.R. under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The F.I.R. has been registered by Shri Rajiv Sharma, SR C.B.I., Jaipur in the police station C.B.I. on the information received in the office through some source in regard to certain advertisements involving some criminal conspiracy with partner of M/s Jupiter Advertisement Services, Jaipur, M/s. Maa Productions, M/s. Goel Stationers, Delhi etc. The allegations concern in regard to certain alleged omissions in issuing advertisements while working as Government officer. There is hardly any necessity to go into any other aspect in the matter except the jurisdiction of the C.B.I. to record/register F.I.R. of its own for the purpose of investigations.
3. Counsel submits that Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act provides that the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Section 5 empowers the Central Government to extend to any area in a State, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the DSPE for the investigation of any offence or classes of offences specified in a notification u/s 3 and where such powers are so extended to the State, the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area. The C.B.I. while so discharging such functions be deemed to be a member of a police force of that area. Section 6 provides in regard to the consent of the State Government to exercise the powers and jurisdiction in the area in the State.
4. `Police Station' has been defined u/s 2(s) Cr.PC. which may mean a post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf. Section 151 Cr.P.C. provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, shall be reduced to writing on direction of SHO and be read over to informant and copy of such information shall be given forthwith to the informant.
5. The Government of Rajasthan vide notification dated 29.2.1991 in exercise of powers conferred u/s 2(s) of Cr.P.C.. had issued a notification that the department of Anti-Corruption in Rajasthan shall be known as Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation and shall deal with all cognizable offences relating to bribe and corruption. Sections under such notifications are mentioned in the notification itself which includes Section 167, 168 etc. A further amendment was made by another notification dated 24.11.1998 and the word `Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation was substituted by the Department of `Anti-corruption Bureau. It is the contention by the petitioner that under the notification dated 25.2.1991, the C.B.I. had no contingency or jurisdiction to investigate the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act as also the penal offence as per notification dated 25.2.1991; the F.I.R. suffers patent illegality in regard to jurisdiction of the C.B.I. Another argument is being made that in view of Section 154 Cr.P.C.. that the information is to be given to the police officer in the police station as to mean a place declared generally or by special order to be a police station. It is submitted that there is no declaration by the State Government published in this behalf, enabling the C.B.I. to regist
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
