9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1938 - HC - Indian LawsCriminal Conspiracy - Prior sanction required to be taken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from the State government in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) prior to investigating an offence in the concerned State - HELD THAT - In the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no doubt that the CBI is indeed relying on what transpired during the investigation conducted in Raipur as far as the present Petitioner is concerned. However, the Court is not able to view the judgment in VVIRBHADRA SINGH ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ORS. 2017 (3) TMI 1886 - DELHI HIGH COURT as having considered the possibility of investigations requiring actions to be taken by the CBI in several States although the registration of the case was in one State. While consent of the State Government might be necessary for registration of a case in that particular State, to say that the CBI must seek the prior consent of every State where the investigation is thereafter conducted would make the scheme of Sections 5 and 6 DSPE Act unworkable - A State Government need not consent only because some other State Government has accorded its consent. Therefore, on the logic of the judgment in Virbhadra Singh (supra), if the consent of eight different States had to be taken and the consent is obtained only of five States, that would mean that the investigation conducted in the remaining three States cannot be considered by the CBI and has to be jettisoned from the charge-sheet. The trial Court, on this reasoning would not be able to look into that part of the evidence. The purpose of the provisions of the DSPE Act is to facilitate the CBI in carrying out its investigations. It would, therefore, be counter-intuitive if the task of the CBI is frustrated beyond the point of practicality. If in every such case the investigation is stalled because of the absence of sanction of a particular State other than the State where the case is registered, then the scheme of Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act and their purpose would be defeated - In the present case, the actions of the Petitioner spoken of in the charge sheet, though performed at Raipur, were pursuant to the criminal conspiracy entered into between some of the accused in New Delhi. According to the CBI, those actions of the Petitioner were in continuation of and, in a sense, a completion of the criminal acts that were planned to be undertaken in that conspiracy. They are inseparable from the main criminal conspiracy itself. According to the CBI, it is not, therefore, as if separate and distinct offences unconnected with the main criminal conspiracy in New Delhi were undertaken by the Petitioner in Raipur. The CBI s case is that offence of criminal conspiracy for which the case has been registered was committed not in Chhattisgarh but in New Delhi. That explains why the CBI has registered the case in New Delhi. The Court finds merit in the contention of the CBI that merely because the further acts pursuant to that criminal conspiracy were performed by the co-accused in a place outside Delhi, in this case Raipur, there would be no necessity for the CBI to seek the prior sanction of Respondent No.3 under Section 6 DSPE Act to take further steps to investigate that case in Raipur or other places in Chhattisgarh - Whether the charge-sheet makes out a case against the Petitioner for the framing of charges as prayed for by the CBI is a question that has to be considered by the learned Special Judge on merits and in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved
1. Requirement of prior sanction under Section 6 of the DSPE Act for CBI investigations in a state. 2. Legality of the CBI's actions and investigations without state consent. 3. Validity of the arrest and subsequent actions by CBI without transit remand. 4. Jurisdictional validity of the charge-sheet and actions taken by CBI. Detailed Analysis Requirement of Prior Sanction under Section 6 of the DSPE Act The central issue in this case is whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) needed prior sanction from the State government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) before investigating an offence in the concerned State. The case involves a criminal conspiracy registered in New Delhi under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The petitioner argued that the CBI's actions in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, were invalid as no consent was given by the State government. The court referred to Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, which stipulate that the CBI requires state consent to exercise its powers in any State other than Delhi. Legality of the CBI's Actions and Investigations Without State Consent The court examined whether the CBI could investigate in Raipur without prior sanction from the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner contended that the CBI's actions were void ab initio due to the lack of state consent. The CBI argued that since the criminal conspiracy was initiated in New Delhi, the investigation could extend to other states without additional consent. The court analyzed previous judgments, including *Virbhadra Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation* and *Ramesh Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation*, to determine that while state consent is generally required, it may not be necessary if the investigation is a continuation of a conspiracy initiated in another state. Validity of the Arrest and Subsequent Actions by CBI Without Transit Remand The petitioner also claimed that his arrest in Raipur and subsequent production before a Delhi court without a transit remand violated Article 22 of the Constitution. The court found that the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge CBI in New Delhi within 24 hours of his arrest, which complied with Article 22. The court noted that transit remand is only necessary if the journey to the jurisdictional court exceeds 24 hours. Jurisdictional Validity of the Charge-Sheet and Actions Taken by CBI The petitioner sought to quash the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance of the offence, arguing that the CBI's actions were without jurisdiction. The court examined whether the CBI's investigation in Raipur, based on a conspiracy initiated in New Delhi, required separate state consent. The court concluded that the actions performed in Raipur were part of the criminal conspiracy initiated in New Delhi and did not necessitate additional state consent. Conclusion The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. It held that the CBI's actions in Raipur were valid as they were part of a criminal conspiracy initiated in New Delhi. The court emphasized that the Special Judge (CBI) would determine the merits of the charge-sheet independently, without being influenced by the court's observations. The interim order was vacated, and the writ petition and application were dismissed with no orders as to costs.
|
