http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 36 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Central Bureau of Investigation

RESPONDENT:

Shri Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/2006

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Central Bureau of Investigation (in short ’CBI’) questions

legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of

the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Respondent No.1, a

member of Indian Administrative Service filed a petition under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short

’the Code’) for quashing the FIR registered by the appellant

alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections

120B, 167, 168, 177A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

’IPC’) and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ’PC Act’). The only ground on

which the respondent no.1 prayed for quashing the FIR is that

the CBI had no jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (in short the ’Act’). FIR

was registered by Shri Rajiv Sharma, Superintendent of Police,

Jaipur at the Police Station, CBI on the information received

through some sources as in regard to certain advertisements

involving criminal conspiracy resulting in the commission of

offences noted above.

Respondent no.1 filed the petition before the High Court

questioning legality of the proceedings.

With reference to Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act, the

respondent no.1 took the stand that the CBI had no

jurisdiction to register the case. In substance the stands were:

(a) consent necessary by the concerned State for operation of

the Act had been withdrawn as is evident from the letter dated

26.6.1999 of the Special Officer (Home), Secretary,

Department in response to the letter dated 21.11.1989 written

by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and

Training, New Delhi. (b) consent of the State Government

which was given in 1956 was extended in 1989 after the PC

Act was promulgated but subsequently the State Government

had not considered it appropriate to accord consent to extend

some provisions of the Act to the whole of the State of

Rajasthan, (c) though the consent had been given by the State

of Rajasthan in 1956 and extended in 1989, same did not

relate to any particular officer to act in terms of the Act and,

therefore, the FIR as lodged had no validity in the eye of law.

The High Court accepted the stands. It held that the consent

was earlier given in 1956 and extended in 1989 after the Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

was enacted. The same became inoperative after the State

Government refused to accord consent for extending the same

provisions of the Act to the whole of Rajasthan. It was also

held that for the authorized officers to function under the Act

it was necessary that the officers were required to be

individually notified and a general notification would not

suffice.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the High Court has committed patent

errors in law. First, prayer of the respondent no.1 could not

have been adjudicated in a petition instituted under Section

482 of the Code. Secondly, the High Court has lost sight of the

fact that the notification issued under Section 5 of the Act had

not been rescinded or revoked at any point of time. Further an

inter departmental communication has been treated as a

notification to hold that the State Government had not

extended the notification. The authority of the person who

wrote that letter has not been established. In any event, the

same cannot be treated to be one covered under Article 166 of

the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ’the Constitution’).

Thirdly, there was no specific order required in respect of each

office