Urgent investigation exception under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act applied to a named public servant in a trap case.

Where a Joint Secretary-level public servant was named in the FIR and the information disclosed an urgent, contemporaneous trap for illegal gratification, the Delhi HC held that the CBI could commence investigation without prior Central Government approval under the urgency exception in Section 6A(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Court further held that the subsequent recovery, arrests of co-accused, disclosure statements, raids and the petitioner's arrest were part of the same continuing investigation, so no fresh approval was required before arrest. The CBI Crime Manual guideline relied on was found inapplicable on these facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on the facts of the case, the investigation against a Joint Secretary level public servant could validly commence without previous approval of the Central Government under Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, by reason of the urgency exception in Section 6A(2); (ii) whether further approval was required before the petitioner's arrest and whether the CBI Crime Manual could restrict the investigation in the manner suggested.

Issue (i): whether, on the facts of the case, the investigation against a Joint Secretary level public servant could validly commence without previous approval of the Central Government under Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, by reason of the urgency exception in Section 6A(2)

Analysis: The source information and FIR named the petitioner at the outset and disclosed a contemplated transfer of illegal gratification on the same day. The Court held that, in such a situation, the CBI was required to act with due dispatch and could not have waited for prior approval before commencing action. The facts were distinguished from the earlier case relied upon by the petitioner, where no fixed time for acceptance of gratification was shown and the urgency exception was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The investigation was validly commenced without prior approval under Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 by virtue of Section 6A(2).

Issue (ii): whether further approval was required before the petitioner's arrest and whether the CBI Crime Manual could restrict the investigation in the manner suggested

Analysis: The Court held that the post-FIR actions, including recovery, arrests of co-accused, recording of disclosure statements, and raids at the petitioner's premises, all formed part of the continuing investigation against the petitioner as well. Since the petitioner was already named in the FIR and the investigation had commenced against him, the later arrest was not a separate stage requiring fresh prior approval. The cited CBI Manual guideline on obtaining approval during a later-emerging inquiry was held inapplicable on these facts.

Conclusion: No fresh approval was required before the petitioner's arrest, and the CBI Crime Manual did not assist the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both the initiation and arrest-related objections, and the impugned proceedings were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public servant is named in the FIR and the facts show an urgent, contemporaneous trap or recovery operation forming part of the same investigation, Section 6A(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 permits the CBI to proceed without prior approval and no separate approval is required before consequential arrest within that continuing investigation.

---