State consent not required for investigation of offences committed outside the State, even with a State public servant accused.

State consent under the DSPE Act was held unnecessary where the principal offence was committed outside the State's territory, even if one accused was a State public servant. The Court treated the alleged fraud and siphoning of funds as offences committed in Delhi against a Government of India undertaking, so the consent requirement in Section 6 did not restrict registration or investigation merely because a Bihar officer was involved. It also held that the proviso in the general consent notification could not create a separate consent requirement for Bihar public servants in the same investigation. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed, and investigation without prior State consent was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso in the State of Bihar's general consent notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 limited the CBI's authority to register and investigate offences committed in Delhi when one accused was a State Government officer. (ii) Whether the alleged involvement of a Bihar public servant required separate prior consent of the State for investigation when the core offence was alleged to have been committed against a Government of India undertaking in Delhi.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso in the State of Bihar's general consent notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 limited the CBI's authority to register and investigate offences committed in Delhi when one accused was a State Government officer.

Analysis: Section 5 enables extension of DSPE powers to States, while Section 6 requires State consent for exercise of such powers within a State. That consent requirement was held to operate in relation to offences investigated within the State's territory. The offence in question was treated as one committed in Delhi, where the undertaking's registered office was situated and where the alleged defrauding and siphoning of funds occurred. On that footing, the investigation did not depend on Bihar's consent merely because one accused was a State employee. The proviso in the notification could not be read to curtail the general consent already granted for offences outside Bihar.

Conclusion: The proviso did not bar the CBI from registering or investigating the FIR.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged involvement of a Bihar public servant required separate prior consent of the State for investigation when the core offence was alleged to have been committed against a Government of India undertaking in Delhi.

Analysis: The FIR was understood as alleging a conspiracy to defraud a Government of India undertaking and siphon its funds at Delhi, with the Bihar official's acts forming part of the alleged means of execution. Because the State police had no jurisdiction to investigate the principal offence as committed in Delhi, obtaining Bihar's consent for that offence was held unnecessary. The Court further held that the proviso in the notification could not create a differential protection for Bihar public servants, and that such a classification would be impermissible where the same offence is under investigation. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed.

Conclusion: Separate prior consent of Bihar was not required for investigation of the alleged offence.

Final Conclusion: The DSPE was competent to register and investigate the FIR without prior consent of the State of Bihar, and the appeal challenging the investigation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the principal offence is committed outside a State's territory, State consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is not required merely because one accused is a public servant of that State; the territorial reach of the investigation follows the place where the specified offence is committed.

---