9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 778 - SC - Indian LawsInvestigation by the CBI without the prior consent of the State - letter in the nature of inter-Departmental communication by the Deputy Secretary to the State of Madhya Pradesh to the Secretary to Central Government - could be treated as valid consent - alleged offences had committed at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh and CBI had no power authority or jurisdiction to institute criminal proceedings direction issued by the High Court was ex facie erroneous - HELD THAT - A notification required to be issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Delhi Act specifying offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under several other Acts has been issued on September 7 1989 and has been placed by the respondent on record along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by Superintendent of Police CBI Bhopal. The said notification covers inter alia the offences punishable under Sections 417 418 420 467 468 471 474 511 IPC. Likewise the Central Government passed an order on February 18 1963 as contemplated by Section 5 of the Delhi Act extending the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Special Police Establishment to various States including the State of Madhya Pradesh for the investigation of offences specified in the Schedule annexed to the said schedule. The Schedule specifies various offences under IPC including the offences referred to hereinabove offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various other enactments. Thus Section 3 and 5 of the Delhi Act have been complied with. The counter argument on behalf of the respondent is that such consent has been given by the State Government which is reflected in the order dated February 5 1957. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that all executive actions of the Government of a State must be taken in accordance with and as per the procedure laid down in Article 166 of the Constitution. Bare reading of Clause (1) of Article 166 of the Constitution makes it clear that all executive actions of the Government of a State should be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. Clause (2) provides for the authentication of the orders and other instructions made and executed in the name of the Governor. Clause (3) enables the Governor to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the Government of the State and for the allocation of business among the Ministers usually known as Rules of Business or Business Rules . The Court nonetheless held the consent valid as general consent was all that was required by law. Though it did not remark on the form in which such consent should be given i.e. the letter was correct or not the fact that it could find nothing wrong with the consent raises a strong presumption in favour of the argument that a letter can be a means of granting consent by the State Government under Section 6. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta 1969 (10) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT this Court observed that it had been repeatedly held that provisions of Article 166(1) and (2) were directory and substantial compliance with those provisions was sufficient. In that case the order impugned was made in the name of the State Government but was signed by the Chief Secretary. The order was held valid. In the present case the decision produced by the respondent along with the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police CBI Bhopal clearly sets out all the particulars required by Section 6 of the Delhi Act. It refers to the file/reference number name of the department the authority from whom it was issued and communicated to the concerned department of the Central Government. It therefore cannot be said that the State Government had not granted consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act. Section 6 which speaks of consent of State Government for the exercise of powers and jurisdiction of the Special Establishment neither refers to notification nor order . It merely requires consent of the State Government for the application of the Delhi Act. Parliament in our considered opinion advisedly and deliberately did not specify the mode method or manner for granting consent though in two preceding sections such mode was provided. If it intended that such consent should be in a particular form it would certainly have provided the form as it was aware of different forms of exercise of power. It therefore depends on the facts of each case whether the consent required by Section 6 of the Delhi Act has or has not been given by the State Government and no rule of universal application can be laid down. Thus there is no doubt that the State of Madhya Pradesh has given consent as envisaged by Section 6 of the Delhi Act and prosecution instituted by CBI against the appellant cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The appeal hence deserves to be dismissed and we accordingly do so. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CBI to initiate criminal proceedings. 2. Requirement of State Government consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 3. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of CBI to initiate criminal proceedings: The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the CBI to initiate criminal proceedings, arguing that the alleged offenses were committed in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the State Police. The appellant further contended that the CBI lacked the authority to prosecute without the consent of the State Government as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The High Court had upheld the CBI's jurisdiction on the grounds that the UPSC examination was conducted by its Delhi office and the appellant was a Central Government employee. 2. Requirement of State Government consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: The crux of the appellant's argument was that the consent required under Section 6 of the Delhi Act was not obtained from the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant argued that the letter dated February 5, 1957, from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh could not be considered valid consent. The respondents, however, maintained that the letter constituted valid consent. 3. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India: The appellant argued that the consent letter did not comply with Article 166 of the Constitution, which mandates that all executive actions of the State Government must be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor and authenticated as per prescribed rules. The appellant contended that the letter was merely inter-departmental communication and did not meet these requirements. Judgment Analysis: Jurisdiction of CBI: The Supreme Court noted that the two factors considered by the High Court-namely, the location of the UPSC head office in Delhi and the appellant being a Central Government employee-did not confer jurisdiction on the CBI under the Delhi Act. The main issue to be resolved was whether the State Government of Madhya Pradesh had given consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act. Consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act: The Court examined the provisions of the Delhi Act and concluded that for the CBI to exercise jurisdiction in a State, the following conditions must be met: - A notification by the Central Government specifying the offenses to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Section 3). - An order by the Central Government extending the powers and jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the State (Section 5). - Consent of the State Government (Section 6). The Court found that the first two conditions were satisfied through notifications and orders issued by the Central Government. Regarding the third condition, the Court scrutinized the letter dated February 5, 1957, from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that the letter constituted valid consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act, as it met all necessary particulars and was communicated to the concerned department. Compliance with Article 166: The Court reviewed several precedents on the interpretation of Article 166 and concluded that while strict compliance with Article 166 provides immunity to an order, non-compliance does not necessarily render an order invalid. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with Article 166 is sufficient. The letter from the Deputy Secretary was found to meet the substantial compliance requirement, as it contained all relevant details and was issued by an authorized official. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the State of Madhya Pradesh had given valid consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act, and the CBI had jurisdiction to prosecute the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the trial court and the High Court were upheld.
|
