1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) registered a case under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. After investigation report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been produced in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kathua. Sessions Judge, Kathua who is ex-officio Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act has framed charge under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act vide order dated 09-12-1998. The petitioner challenges the order on the grounds that the investigation of the case being without jurisdiction the order framing the charge is illegal and an abuse of the process of the court and therefore liable to be quashed.

2. Mr. Sethi appearing for the petitioner argued that consent of the State Government is necessary under section 6 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act (for short the Act). The Act empowers the C.B.I, to investigate offences for which notification dated 01-04-1964 has been issued under Section 5 of the Act. His further argument is that as per objects and reasons the Act empowers to investigate only offences of bribery and corruption committed by officers or others in the department of Central Government. Since the petitioner is not an employee of any government department, the investigation was without jurisdiction and the charge groundless.

3. Mr. Bhat on the other hand argued that C.B.I, has the power to investigate and the charge has been rightly framed. He further argued that revision against the order of framing charge is not maintainable. The first ground of challenge is without any basis in view of the judgment of this court in ˜Lt. Col. H.N. Tripathi Vs. State™, JKLR 1987 (1) 386 in which it has been held that:-

8. The Central Government vide notification No. 25/3/60-AVD (i) and (ii) dated 01-04-1964, authorised the SPE to investigate offences punishable under the State P.C. Act as well as under Sections 161 and 165 RPC besides other specified offences detailed in the notification, in Jammu & Kashmir. The notification had been issued consequent upon the consent of the State Government for their issuance conveyed vide letter No. S-253/57-PD dated 18-12-1963 addressed by the Secretary to the Government of J&K. General Department to the Deputy Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. These notifications are a complete answer to the first argument of Mr. Koul, as CBI vide these notifications read with the relevant provisions of the 1946 Act has jurisdiction to investigate the offences specified therein and the offences in the present case have been so specified. Brother Bhat J, has not made any reference, whatsoever, to these notifications at all in his judgment let alone considered them and thus, reached a conclusion to the contrary. Brother Sethi J, has, however, on the strength of these notifications repelled the argument of Mr. Koul and I am in complete agreement with his lordship.

4. However, according to Mr. Sethi the letter of the State Government relied in the case of Tripathi (supra), being prior in date of the notification, it could not be construed as consent under section 6 of the Act. Even this argument must fail because section 6 does not contemplate a separate notification evidencing consent. This section reads as under:-

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.

5. This section nowhere prescribes the form in which the consent is to be conveyed. So neither any separate notification nor any order is necessary. It is sufficient compliance of the Act if notification under section 5 is issued after obtaining the consent of the State Government. This view finds support from the decision of Patna High Court in ˜Association for Protection of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document