CBI investigation across States and 24-hour production under Article 22(2) upheld where travel time is excluded.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act were construed to permit the CBI to investigate offences in another State without obtaining separate consent for each investigative act where the case was registered in Delhi and the out-of-State acts formed part of the same conspiracy. The note also states that Article 22(2) was applied to exclude travel time while computing the 24-hour production requirement, and therefore production before the Delhi court within that period did not require prior transit remand from a local Magistrate. On those facts, the challenge to the investigation and arrest failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prior consent of the concerned State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was required before the CBI could carry out investigation steps in Chhattisgarh where the case had been registered in Delhi and the alleged acts in Chhattisgarh were part of the same criminal conspiracy. (ii) Whether the arrest of the petitioner at Raipur and production before the Delhi court within 24 hours, without obtaining transit remand from a local Magistrate, was illegal.

Issue (i): Whether prior consent of the concerned State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was required before the CBI could carry out investigation steps in Chhattisgarh where the case had been registered in Delhi and the alleged acts in Chhattisgarh were part of the same criminal conspiracy.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was read as extending the CBI's powers to other States for investigation of notified offences, while requiring State consent for exercise of powers within that State. The Court held that the provision could not be applied in a manner that makes investigation unworkable by requiring separate consent from every State where some investigative act occurs. Since the conspiracy was registered in Delhi and the acts in Chhattisgarh were treated as inseparable steps in furtherance of the same conspiracy, the investigation in Raipur did not call for a separate consent from Chhattisgarh merely because some investigative steps occurred there.

Conclusion: Prior consent of Respondent No. 3 was not required for the CBI to investigate the matter in Chhattisgarh on the facts of this case.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest of the petitioner at Raipur and production before the Delhi court within 24 hours, without obtaining transit remand from a local Magistrate, was illegal.

Analysis: Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India was applied to hold that travel time is to be excluded while computing the 24-hour period for production before the jurisdictional court. As the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge in Delhi within 24 hours of arrest, and the case itself had been registered in Delhi, there was no requirement to first produce him before a local Magistrate for transit remand.

Conclusion: The arrest and production of the petitioner were not illegal on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the Court declined to interfere with the investigation or the proceedings challenged by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 does not require separate State consent for investigative acts in another State when those acts are part of a single conspiracy registered and investigated at the jurisdictional place, and production within 24 hours before the jurisdictional court satisfies Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India without a transit remand where travel time is excluded.

---