Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (11) TMI 1103 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Legality of CBI investigation without compliance with Section 6 of DSPE Act.
2. Nature of the cases (civil or criminal) based on breach of contract (FSA).
3. Doctrine of parity in filing criminal prosecutions by CBI.
4. Charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC in the absence of NCL officers.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of CBI Investigation Without Compliance with Section 6 of DSPE Act:
The primary issue was whether the CBI's investigation was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 6 of the DSPE Act, which mandates state government consent for CBI investigations. The Allahabad High Court's Single Judge initially found the investigation invalid due to lack of prior consent from the Uttar Pradesh Government. However, the Division Bench clarified that the Government Order dated 15th June 1989 provided general consent for CBI investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with a condition that prior permission is needed only for public servants under state control. The Supreme Court noted that the notification allowed CBI to investigate private individuals without specific consent and upheld the investigation's validity against private individuals. For the public servants, post-facto consent obtained on 7th September 2018 was deemed sufficient, and the investigation was not vitiated as no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown.

2. Nature of the Cases (Civil or Criminal) Based on Breach of Contract (FSA):
The High Court was to determine whether the cases were predominantly civil in nature due to breach of the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) and thus not warranting criminal prosecution. This issue was not resolved in the impugned order, as the Single Judge had deferred it pending the decision on the legality of the investigation.

3. Doctrine of Parity in Filing Criminal Prosecutions by CBI:
The question was whether CBI followed the doctrine of parity in prosecuting the petitioners. This issue was also deferred by the Single Judge and remained unresolved in the impugned order.

4. Charge of Criminal Conspiracy Under Section 120-B IPC in the Absence of NCL Officers:
The High Court was to decide if a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC could be sustained without the involvement of Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) officers. This issue too was deferred and not addressed in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the CBI's investigation was valid despite the initial lack of state consent, as post-facto consent was obtained. The Court remitted the matter to the Single Judge to decide the unresolved issues (questions 2, 3, and 4) on their merits, clarifying that it had not considered the merits of these issues and kept all questions open for both parties. The criminal appeals were disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates