E-Paper
CBI need not take state consent to probe offences within UTs by state employees
SC has cleared the decks for the CBI to probe cases against state officials involved in crimes committed inside Union Territories.
The Supreme Court on Friday bolstered the CBI’s powers by holding that the central government’s premier investigating agency need not take a state government’s consent for investigating offences committed within union territories by state government employees acting in their official capacity.
The requirement under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 (DSPE Act), which mandates that the CBI should obtain the consent of the state before exercising its jurisdiction over any area which is not a union territory, will not apply in such a case, the top court held.
“The consent of the State under Section 6 cannot come in the way or constrict the jurisdiction of the special police force to investigate specified offences under Section 3 of the 1946 Act committed within the Union Territories”, the bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari ruled.
The CBI can investigate such cases even if the accused person is residing in a state, is in its employment and committed the offence in his or her capacity as a state government employee, the court made it clear.
The petitioner in the case, Kanwal Tanuj was an IAS officer employed in connection with the affairs of the Bihar government as District Magistrate at Aurangabad District in Bihar.
He was accused of large scale corruption and siphoning of government funds during the construction of an electric plant by Bhartiya Rail Bijli Company Limited (BRBCL) at Nabinagar in Aurangabad district of Bihar.
It was alleged that there was corruption and siphoning of government funds during land acquisition for the plant by the BRBCL officials in criminal connivance with local district administration including the petitioner.
FIR was registered against him by the CBI for the offences of cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and for the offence of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It was the petitioner’s case that the offence alleged against him was committed in his capacity as an employee of the state of Bihar and therefore, would require the consent of Bihar government as per section 6 of the DSPE Act before the CBI can proceed against him.
The Supreme Court, however, turned down the argument noting that the registered office of BRBCL is within the jurisdiction of Union Territory of Delhi and the offence was committed at Delhi, and therefore, courts in Delhi will have jurisdiction to try the offence.
The investigation of the offence, the court said, may incidentally transcend to the territory of Bihar because of the acts of commission and omission of the petitioner who is a resident of that state and employed in connection with the affairs of Bihar. That, however, cannot come in the way of CBI from investigating the offence committed at Delhi, the court made it clear.
In this regard, the court upheld the findings of the Delhi high court.
The high court had noted that the registered office of BRBCL was in Delhi and the allegation regarding defrauding BRBCL and siphoning of funds had occurred in Delhi. Funds for implementation of the project through BRBCL were provided by the Central Government in the 2005-06 Union Budget.
The high court had, therefore, concluded that criminal conspiracy for committing the offence was hatched at Delhi and the CBI was competent to register FIR in Delhi without the consent of the state government.
Affirming the high court’s view, the Supreme Court said that consent will not be necessary regarding the investigation by the CBI in respect of specified offences committed within Union Territory and other offences associated with it.
“Had it been an offence limited to the manipulation of the official record of the State and involvement of officials of the State of Bihar, it would have been a different matter. If the State police have no jurisdiction to investigate the offence in question, as registered, then, seeking consent of the State in respect of such offence does not arise”, the judgment said.
