TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the office-bearers of the Indian Red Cross Society were public servants or persons discharging public duty so as to attract the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Whether the State Government's consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for CBI investigation was without jurisdiction or otherwise invalid.
Issue (i): Whether the office-bearers of the Indian Red Cross Society were public servants or persons discharging public duty so as to attract the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Analysis: The Society was treated as a statutory body created under a Central enactment, receiving grants and enjoying governmental support for specified schemes and public welfare functions. The duties attached to the offices held by the petitioners were held to be of a public character, and the nature of the work undertaken by the Society brought the office-bearers within the sweep of public duty. The Court applied the wide definition of public duty and held that the existence of an office and the performance of duties connected with that office were sufficient to attract the penal regime where public interest was involved.
Conclusion: The petitioners were held to fall within the ambit of public duty and the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were held maintainable against them.
Issue (ii): Whether the State Government's consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for CBI investigation was without jurisdiction or otherwise invalid.
Analysis: Section 6 was construed as requiring only consent of the State Government for extension of CBI powers within the State, and such consent was characterised as an administrative permission rather than a sanction requiring detailed adjudicatory reasons. The complaint disclosed cognizable allegations, the subject matter involved offences within the CBI's notified sphere, and the accused had no enforceable right to choose the investigating agency. The Court further held that the absence of a complaint before the local police did not invalidate the consent or the ensuing investigation.
Conclusion: The consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was upheld as valid and within jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on both the substantive challenge to the applicability of the corruption law and the challenge to the CBI consent and investigation, and the impugned orders were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory or specially constituted body performing public duties with governmental grants and privileges may bring its office-bearers within the definition of public servant, and consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is an administrative permission that validly enables CBI investigation within the State.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
