Mandatory prior approval for CBI inquiry against protected officers held essential; trap and investigation without approval were illegal.

Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was treated as operative and mandatory for inquiry or investigation against a protected Central Government officer, requiring prior Central Government approval before the CBI could proceed. The Court held that registration of the case, laying of the trap and continuation of the investigation without such approval contravened section 6A(1), and section 6A(2) did not justify a pre-planned trap after investigation had begun. Although an illegal investigation does not automatically nullify a later trial, the defect was raised at an early stage, so the proper course was reinvestigation rather than continuation of the tainted proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was operative and governed inquiry or investigation against a Central Government officer of the requisite rank; (ii) whether the CBI violated section 6A(1) by registering the case, laying the trap and continuing the investigation without prior approval of the Central Government; and (iii) whether an investigation conducted in breach of that mandatory requirement vitiated the trial or required the matter to be sent back for reinvestigation.

Issue (i): Whether section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was operative and governed inquiry or investigation against a Central Government officer of the requisite rank.

Analysis: Section 6A was inserted into the statute with effect from 11.09.2003 and remained in force notwithstanding the challenge to its validity. The earlier executive Single Directive had been struck down, but the statutory provision itself continued to operate. The provision required prior approval of the Central Government before the CBI could conduct any inquiry or investigation into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 where the allegation related, inter alia, to a Central Government employee of the level of Joint Secretary and above.

Conclusion: The provision was held to be operative and applicable.

Issue (ii): Whether the CBI violated section 6A(1) by registering the case, laying the trap and continuing the investigation without prior approval of the Central Government.

Analysis: The complaint was received and the regular case was registered the same day without any prior approval from the Central Government, although the petitioner was of the protected rank. The Court held that section 6A(1) created a mandatory bar against initiating inquiry or investigation without prior approval. Section 6A(2) was confined to cases involving arrest on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept illegal gratification, and did not cover a pre-planned trap laid after registration of the case and commencement of investigation. Laying of a trap was treated as part of investigation, so the trap proceedings also fell within the illegal investigation.

Conclusion: The CBI acted in contravention of section 6A(1), and section 6A(2) did not save the investigation.

Issue (iii): Whether an investigation conducted in breach of that mandatory requirement vitiated the trial or required the matter to be sent back for reinvestigation.

Analysis: The Court reviewed the authorities on illegal investigation and concluded that a defect in investigation does not automatically nullify a trial after cognizance and conviction unless miscarriage of justice is shown. However, where the illegality is brought to the court's notice at an early stage, the court should not proceed blindly with the trial and should instead direct reinvestigation so that the mandatory defect is cured. Applying that principle, the discharge application could not simply be rejected and the trial allowed to continue on the basis of an illegal investigation.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not quashed outright, but reinvestigation was directed and the case was to remain pending before the Special Judge until the Central Government's approval was obtained.

Final Conclusion: The revision was disposed of by setting aside the continuation of the trial on the basis of the invalid investigation and directing the matter to be reconsidered after obtaining the requisite approval, with further action to depend on whether approval was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes prior approval a mandatory precondition to inquiry or investigation against a protected class of public servant, any trap and investigation undertaken without that approval are illegal; if the illegality is raised at the threshold, the proper course is reinvestigation rather than continuation of the trial on the tainted material.

---