2020 (4) TMI 910 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms CBI's jurisdiction in FIR registration without State consent

Kanwal Tanuj Versus State of Bihar and Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the CBI had jurisdiction to register the FIR and conduct the investigation without the ... Investigation of an IAS by an CBI - principal ground canvassed by the Appellant before the High Court was that he being an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) employed in connection with the affairs of the Government of Bihar as District Magistrate at Aurangabad District (State of Bihar) could not be subjected to investigation by the CBI without the prior consent of the State. Whether the proviso in the stated notification dated 19.2.1996 would come in the way of the officials of DSPE to register FIR and carry on investigation of specified offences committed within the Union Territory (National Capital Territory of Delhi), to which the 1946 Act applies? HELD THAT:- The High Court, in the present case, after analysing the material on record clearly found that BRBCL was a Government undertaking and the project undertaken by it was funded by the Central Government and that it had its registered office in the Union Territory of Delhi (National Capital Territory of Delhi), where the offence of defrauding the undertaking (BRBCL) and siphoning of its funds was allegedly committed. We see no reason to deviate from the opinion so recorded by the High Court. The alleged role played by the Appellant may be a means to facilitate the commission of crime of defrauding and siphoning of funds. The FIR in that sense is not limited to an offence of manipulation of official records of the State of Bihar as such, but is about the means used by the different actors who were party to the conspiracy in defrauding the Government of India undertaking (BRBCL) and siphoning of its funds. Indisputably, the registered office of BRBCL is within the jurisdiction of Union Territory of Delhi (National Capital Territory of Delhi) and allegedly the offence has been committed at Delhi, for which reason the Delhi Court will have jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof. To put it differently, the offence in question has been committed outside the State of Bihar. The investigation of the stated offence may incidentally transcend to the territory of State of Bihar because of the acts of commission and omission of the Appellant who is resident of that State and employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar. That, however, cannot come in the way of special police force (DSPE) from investigating the offence committed at Delhi and has been so registered by it and is being investigated. Had it been an offence limited to manipulation of official record of the State and involvement of officials of the State of Bihar, it would have been a different matter - If the State police has had no jurisdiction to investigate the offence in question, as registered, then, seeking consent of the State in respect of such offence does not arise. Any other approach would render the special provisions of the 1946 Act otiose. Suffice it to observe that the proviso contained in the stated notification dated 19.2.1996 cannot be the basis to disempower the special police force/DSPE (CBI) from registering the offence committed at Delhi to defraud the Government of India undertaking (BRBCL) and siphoning of its funds and having its registered office at Delhi. Allegedly, the stated offence has been committed at Delhi. If so, the Delhi Courts will have jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof. The State police (State of Bihar) cannot investigate the specified offences committed and accomplished at Delhi, being outside the territory of the State of Bihar - the consent of the State Under Section 6 cannot come in the way or constrict the jurisdiction of the special police force constituted Under Section 2 to investigate specified offences Under Section 3 of the 1946 Act committed within the Union Territories. Indeed, when the Court of competent jurisdiction proceeds to take cognizance of offence and particularly against the Appellant, it may consider the question of necessity of a prior sanction of the State of Bihar qua its official(s) as may be required by law. That question can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of CBI to investigate without State consent.2. Validity of FIR against a State Government employee.3. Interpretation of the proviso in the notification dated 19.2.1996.4. Federal structure and powers of DSPE under the 1946 Act.5. Requirement of prior sanction for prosecution.Issue-Wise Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of CBI to Investigate Without State Consent:The appellant contended that as an IAS officer employed by the Government of Bihar, he could not be investigated by the CBI without the prior consent of the State. The High Court held that the CBI was competent to register the FIR and carry out the investigation because the alleged criminal conspiracy and siphoning of funds occurred in the Union Territory of Delhi. The funds for the project were provided by the Central Government, and the registered office of BRBCL was in Delhi. The High Court cited a notification dated 19.2.1996, which accorded general consent to the DSPE to exercise powers and jurisdiction in Bihar. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the proviso in the notification applies only to offences committed within Bihar, and since the offence was committed in Delhi, the CBI did not require Bihar's consent.2. Validity of FIR Against a State Government Employee:The appellant argued that the FIR did not disclose any criminal offence against him and was void ab initio as it was registered without the State's prior consent. The High Court dismissed this argument, stating that the investigation was related to the affairs of a Central Government undertaking (BRBCL) and the funds provided by the Central Government. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the alleged offence involved defrauding a Government of India undertaking and siphoning funds, which occurred in Delhi. Therefore, the FIR was validly registered by the CBI.3. Interpretation of the Proviso in the Notification Dated 19.2.1996:The appellant contended that the proviso in the notification restricted the general consent accorded by the State, requiring prior consent for investigating public servants employed in Bihar. The High Court interpreted the proviso as not applicable to offences committed outside Bihar. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the proviso applies to offences committed within Bihar, and since the offence occurred in Delhi, the proviso did not restrict the CBI's jurisdiction.4. Federal Structure and Powers of DSPE Under the 1946 Act:The appellant and the State of Bihar argued that policing is a State subject, and the DSPE requires State consent to investigate offences involving State employees. The Supreme Court emphasized the federal structure and the specific provisions of the 1946 Act, which allow the DSPE to investigate specified offences committed in Union Territories without State consent. The Court held that the requirement of State consent under Section 6 of the 1946 Act is not applicable when the offence is committed in a Union Territory.5. Requirement of Prior Sanction for Prosecution:The appellant argued that his actions were in his official capacity and protected under Section 79 of the IPC, and that the CBI should have conducted a preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR. The Supreme Court noted that the FIR was based on substantial allegations of conspiracy and fraud involving a Central Government undertaking. The Court stated that the necessity of prior sanction for prosecution could be considered by the competent court when taking cognizance of the offence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the CBI was competent to register the FIR and investigate the alleged offence without the prior consent of the State of Bihar. The Court clarified that the proviso in the notification dated 19.2.1996 did not restrict the CBI's jurisdiction in this case, as the offence was committed in Delhi. The Court also emphasized the federal structure and the specific powers of the DSPE under the 1946 Act, allowing it to investigate specified offences in Union Territories without State consent.