1. The point of law on which the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench differed in their opinion is: whether the Central Bureau of Investigation ( for short, C3I ) constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( for short, the 1946 Act) has jurisdiction to investigate cases under the Ranbir Penal Code and the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 ( for short the P. C. Act) and to file the final report before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption in a case where one of the accused is an Indian. Army officer ? whereas Brother Bhat J, held that it does not, Brother Sethi J. held otherwise. In view of this divergence of opinion the case has been referred to me.

2. The question being essentially legal, reference to some salient facts would suffice.

3. According to the prosecution case the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under section 120 - B R. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the P. C. Act and Sections 161 and 165 RFC. Accused No 1: Lt. Col. H. N. Tripathi. at the time of the alleged occurrence was serving in the Armed Forces and posted in this State. The Superintendent of police D-ili Special Police Establishment, CBI, Jammu, who was entrusted with the investigation found the charges made out on the basis of which Government of India accorded sanction on 7-9-1977 under section 6 (1) (b) P. C. Act and Sec. 197 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of Lt. Col, Tripathi, accused No: 1, under the P. C. Act and offences punishable under other provisions of law. Following this a regular charge-sheet was produced in the court of learned Special Judge, Anti corruption, Srinagar on 30-9-1977. When the accused put in their appearance they moved an application stating therein that the proceedings against them were not maintainable as the investigation had not been conducted by an agency competent to investigate cases under the P. C. Act. They also challenged the validity of the order of sanction for their prosecution. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 18-10-1978. Aggrieved, a revision petition was filed which in view of the importance of the questions raised, was referred to the Division Bench.

4. Mr. S. L. Koul, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that an officer of the CBI not an officer competent to investigate the cases within the meaning of sec. 2-A of the P, C. Act which reads as under:-

"2-A. Establishment of Anti-Corruption Organization-The Government may, by an order published in the Government Gazette set up a special organization of the police for the investigation of offences under this Act and such organization shall be known as "Anti-Corruption Organization."

The section on its plain reading provides that the government may by an order published in the Government Gazette set up a special organization of the police for the investigation of the offences under the Act to be called "Anti-Corruption Organization" ( ACO, for short). So according to Mr. Koul, investigation under the P. C. Act can only be carried out by the officers of the ACO and, thus investigation by any other police organization is excluded. Mr. Koul further contended that the police officer referred to in Sections 2-A and 3 of the P. C. Act being officers who belong to the ACO and the CBI not having been included in the said section, it has, as such, no jurisdiction to investigate into the offences under the P. C. Act.

3. With a view to appreciate the submissions of Mr. Koul, it is necessary to consider how the CBI gets any jurisdiction to investigate in this State.

6. The Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 (1946 Act), under which the CBI was established has been extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir by the Jammu & Kashmir (Extension of Laws) Act, 1956. The validity of the extension of the 1946 Act to Jammu & Kashmir was upheld by the Supreme Court of India ia Ishwardass Malhotra V. Union of India

Click Here to Read the rest of this document