Prior High Court ruling and Section 8 scope upheld CBI jurisdiction and allowed prosecution to proceed against the private accused.

A prior competent High Court ruling on the same alleged conspiracy governed the territorial jurisdiction issue, so the Chhattisgarh HC declined to re-open whether CBI could investigate without prior State consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and upheld the investigation. On Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court treated the provision as applying to a private person who allegedly receives gratification to induce a public servant by corrupt or illegal means, and held that the public servant need not be named in the charge-sheet at the petition stage. The challenge to the alleged conspiracy was also left to be tested at trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the CBI could investigate the case in Chhattisgarh without prior consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act; (ii) Whether the petition disclosed a sustainable challenge to the applicability of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the alleged conspiracy.

Issue (i): Whether the CBI could investigate the case in Chhattisgarh without prior consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.

Analysis: The petition challenged the investigation on the ground that no special consent of the State was obtained. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court had already decided the same jurisdictional question in a connected matter concerning a co-accused, holding that the case was registered in New Delhi because the conspiracy was alleged to have been hatched there, and that further acts in Chhattisgarh did not require prior consent from the State for investigation. The Court also held that principles of judicial discipline and the earlier competent decision made it inappropriate for a Single Judge to re-open the same issue. The territorial reach of Article 226 and the concept of part of the cause of action arising within a State were noticed, but the prior decision of the competent High Court was treated as governing.

Conclusion: The challenge to CBI's jurisdiction was rejected and the investigation without prior consent was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition disclosed a sustainable challenge to the applicability of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the alleged conspiracy.

Analysis: The Court considered the statutory ingredients of Section 8, namely receipt or agreement to receive gratification as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. It held that the section operates against a private person and does not require the public servant to be named in the charge-sheet at the stage of the petition. On the materials noticed, the allegations were sufficient to proceed against the co-accused who allegedly received the gratification, while the petitioner was proceeded against for criminal conspiracy. The Court further observed that the challenge to the conspiracy allegation could be pursued at the stage of trial and framing of charge.

Conclusion: The challenge to the proceedings on the ground of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and lack of conspiracy was not accepted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to be without merit, and the impugned investigation and prosecution were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a competent High Court has already ruled on the territorial jurisdiction of a CBI investigation arising from the same alleged conspiracy, a co-equal Single Judge should not re-open the same question; and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies to a private person who allegedly receives gratification to induce a public servant, even if the public servant is not specifically identified at the petition stage.

---