Withdrawal of consent cannot undo a completed CBI investigation; further investigation remains a continuation, not a fresh inquiry.

Withdrawal of consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act could not retrospectively displace a CBI investigation already commenced and completed, because revocation operates prospectively and cannot undo steps already taken. Further investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as a continuation of the earlier investigation, not a fresh or de novo inquiry by another agency, so State police could not be authorised to take over the same case. The withdrawal notification was also treated as mala fide, as the material suggested an attempt to revive the matter for a predetermined outcome rather than for a lawful investigative purpose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could withdraw consent granted under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 after the CBI had commenced and completed investigation and filed its report, so as to enable the State police to undertake further investigation. (ii) Whether the impugned withdrawal notification was liable to be struck down as a mala fide exercise of power.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could withdraw consent granted under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 after the CBI had commenced and completed investigation and filed its report, so as to enable the State police to undertake further investigation.

Analysis: The consent under Section 6 enabled the CBI to investigate in the State, and once that investigation had been commenced and completed, withdrawal of consent could not undo the completed investigation. The Court applied the principle that an order of revocation can operate prospectively and cannot affect steps already taken. It further held that the concept of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only a continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh or de novo investigation. On that footing, the State police could not be authorised to further investigate the very same case after the CBI had been entrusted with, and had completed, the investigation.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of consent could not validly authorise the State police to further investigate the case and was unsustainable in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned withdrawal notification was liable to be struck down as a mala fide exercise of power.

Analysis: The Court relied on the factual circumstances showing that the case had earlier been transferred to the CBI because the State police itself considered effective investigation difficult, that the CBI had conducted a detailed investigation, and that the State's subsequent attempt to revive the matter appeared aimed at reaching a predetermined conclusion of guilt. The Court held that the materials on record did not justify the proposed further investigation by the State police and that the notification did not accord with the conduct expected of a responsible Government acting under rule of law.

Conclusion: The impugned notification was also vitiated by mala fide exercise of power.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the notification withdrawing consent was quashed, leaving the CBI investigation undisturbed and awarding costs to the accused-appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 cannot be used to displace a CBI investigation already commenced and completed, and further investigation after a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only a continuation of the existing investigation, not a fresh investigation by another agency.

---