Territorial police jurisdiction upheld where State consent exists and constitutional adaptation includes Union territories.

The Delhi Special Police Establishment could investigate notified offences in another State where that State's consent was given, and a later notification did not invalidate earlier consent for offences already covered. The constitutional and statutory scheme was also read to support the Act's application to the Union Territory of Delhi, because the adapted definition of "State" included a Union territory and Entry 80 was construed to cover a police force belonging to a Union territory. The phrase "belonging to" was understood in a territorial and functional sense, so the change from "for" to "in" did not create inconsistency. The challenge to jurisdiction and constitutional validity therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Delhi Special Police Establishment could investigate the notified offences in another State with the consent of that State Government; (ii) Whether the constitutional and statutory scheme, including the adapted definition of "State" and the expression "belonging to any State" in Entry 80, authorised the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to operate in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi Special Police Establishment could investigate the notified offences in another State with the consent of that State Government.

Analysis: The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act empowered the Central Government to notify offences and to extend the powers and jurisdiction of the force to any area, subject to the consent of the Government of the concerned State. The record showed that Maharashtra had consented to the exercise of jurisdiction in respect of the offences in question, and there was a presumption of regularity attaching to official acts. The later notification did not negate the earlier consent for offences already covered, since the new notification substantially restated the earlier one while adding further offences.

Conclusion: The objection to investigation in Maharashtra failed, and the power to investigate was validly exercisable with State consent.

Issue (ii): Whether the constitutional and statutory scheme, including the adapted definition of "State" and the expression "belonging to any State" in Entry 80, authorised the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to operate in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi.

Analysis: After the Seventh Amendment, the adapted General Clauses Act defined "State" so as to include a Union territory, and Article 372A supplied a fresh constitutional basis for adaptation of existing laws to the amended Constitution. Entry 80 was therefore read as extending to a police force belonging to a Union territory as well. The phrase "belonging to" was construed in a territorial and functional sense, meaning a police force constituted and functioning in one area that may be authorised to act in another. On that construction, the change from "for" to "in" in the Act did not create any inconsistency with the constitutional entry.

Conclusion: The Act remained constitutionally valid and applicable to the Delhi Special Police Establishment.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the jurisdiction and constitutional validity of the Delhi Special Police Establishment failed, and the appeal was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A law authorising extension of police powers beyond territorial limits is valid where the Constitution, as adapted, permits the relevant term to include Union territories and the concerned State has given the required consent; the phrase "belonging to" may be construed territorially and functionally to sustain the legislation.

---