General consent for CBI inquiry and later consent sustained investigation despite no prior State approval, absent prejudice.

General consent for CBI investigation under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act covered offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and connected offences arising from the same transaction, so separate prior consent was not required for private individuals. For public servants under the State Government's control, the investigation was later regularised by post-facto consent after their names emerged during inquiry. The Court reiterated that an irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the trial or further proceedings unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown. As no such prejudice was pleaded or established, the challenge based on absence of prior consent failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absence of prior consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 vitiated the CBI investigation, and whether subsequent consent or the existing general consent cured the defect for private individuals and public servants.

Analysis: The notification dated 15 June 1989 granted general consent for CBI investigation throughout Uttar Pradesh in relation to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and connected offences arising out of the same transaction. On that basis, no separate prior consent was required for investigation against private individuals. As regards public servants under the control of the State Government, their names surfaced during investigation and the State thereafter granted post-facto consent. The Court applied the settled principle that an illegality or irregularity in investigation does not by itself vitiate the trial or further proceedings unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown. Since no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was pleaded or established, the absence of prior consent did not warrant quashing.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-obtaining of prior consent under Section 6 failed. The investigation was not held invalid on that ground, and the State's general consent and later consent were treated as sufficient in the circumstances.

---