Honble THOMAS, J.–Has a magistrate power to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into any offence ? This question, seemingly ingenuous, has become compounded with divergent verdicts pronounced by different High Courts. When the High Courts of Rajasthan and Delhi answered the question in the affirmative, the High Courts of Gujarat and Karnataka have answered it in the negative. These appeals are filed at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short `CBI) in challenge of the judgments of the High Courts of Rajasthan and Delhi by which the orders passed by certain magistrates were upheld.

(2). It is not necessary to narrate the facts in each case. The common feature in all the appeals is, when a complaint was filed before a magistrate alleging serious offence, he ordered investigation to be conducted by the CBI and on completion of the investigation final report was required to be filed. We may now mention what happened thereafter to one of the cases before us. The CBI challenged the order of the magistrate before the High Court of Delhi contending that the magistrate has no jurisdiction to order the CBI to conduct the investigation, at least without obtaining consent of the State Government concerned as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (`Delhi Act for short). The CBI sought support for the said contention from some of the earlier decisions rendered by single Judges of the Delhi High Court. When the matter was placed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, a contrary view was taken and the Bench held that the magistrate has the power to do so. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in reaching the said view, has mainly relied on the observations made by this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Sampat Lal & Ors. (1). Learned Judges highlighted the following observations contained in Sampatlal :

``In our considered opinion, Section 6 of the Delhi Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position. In this view, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG of CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attack for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Act.

(3). Learned Judges gave emphasis to the words ``when the court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation. The Division Bench of the High Court took it for granted that what this Court meant by the word ``court as used in the said obser- vation in Sampat Lal should be understood as any Court. The Division Bench declined to accept the view of the Karnataka High Court (in one of the decisions) that what the Supreme Court meant in Sampat Lals case is the High Court and not any Court.

(4). It is unnecessary for us to resolve the controversy fomented up with the expression ``court in Sampat Lal because the question whether a magistrate has the power to direct the CBI to conduct the investigation was not the issue involved in Sampat Lal at all. The fact situation in Sampat Lal was centered on the direction issued by the High Court. That apart, it is not advisable to read more than what is contained in a judgment.

(5). For deciding the present question we may refer to the powers of the magistrate in ordering investigation. There are three provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ``the Code) by which a magistrate can order investigation to be conducted. They are Sections 155, 156 and 202 of the Code. Among them Section 155 concerns only with the investigation into non- cognizable offences whereas Section 202 only enables a magistrate to have the assistance of an investigation conducted either by the police or by any other person, for the limited purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. Hence we need not vex our mind

Click Here to Read the rest of this document