ORDER I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate and Sri G. S. Hajela learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.
2. In this case a counter-affidavit was filed by earlier standing counsel of CBI Sri Giridhar Nath, which is on record. However, this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed annexing the documents and the orders of the learned Court below and as such this Court is to see whether the charge-sheet filed by the CBI in the Court of the Magistrate was proper or not and hence for that purpose no counter affidavit was required at all.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner, while he was posted as Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'G.D.A.') in pursuance of the resolution dated 22-4-1983 put an application personally to Sri S. K. Goswami, I.A.S. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, the then Chairman G.D.A. for allotment of a plot in Surya Nagar/Chandra Nagar colony in pursuance of the resolution dated 22-4-83, by means of which the G.D.A. agreed to a proposal that certain plots of uneven sizes, for which there was no public demand, can be allotted to the employees of the G.D.A. as well as the employees on deputation with G.D.A. subject to the conditions that such employee should not have own plot building at Ghaziabad nor they should have allotted any plot as per scheme floated prior to the scheme 1972 at Ghaziabad and that the plot should be allotted only to the employees, who do not possess any plot either at Delhi or any city of Uttar Pradesh in his own name or in the name of his dependents. Regarding compliance of the above conditions the employee was to file an affidavit to the same effect. It is further alleged that on the application of the petitioner the then Chairman passed an order for allotment, subject to the availability of the plot, in pursuance of which a corner plot of 90-60 size bearing No. E-8 Chandra Nagar was got allotted to Smt. Kamla Mishra, wife of the petitioner. Thereafter, on the allegation of the prosecution that the resolution was regarding the uneven plots but the plot which was got allotted to the wife of the petitioner, was a corner plot and the same was not covered with the resolution dated 22-4-83, a case RC No. 3 (A/88 ACU (VI) under Section 420, IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered in which the CBI filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for committing offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471, IPC before the Court of Special Magistrate, (CBI) with the allegations that the petitioner had committed gross misuse of his position as Vice-Chairman and got allotted the plot in the name of his wife. It was further alleged that the petitioner was not entitled for allotment as his wife and son were having a big house at Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow and in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application for allotment, cutting and scoring was made afterwards and thereby he committed forgery as well.
4. While contesting the aforesaid case before the Special Magistrate two points were raised on behalf of the petitioner. One of them was that no offence under any of the Sections, namely, 420, 468 and 471 was made out against the accused on the basis of the allegations made by CBI and the other plea was that the CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate and file the charge-sheet against him as there was no consent of the State Government. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 2-11-89 held that no case was made out against the petitioner and there is no prima facie evidence on record to frame the charges against the accused under Section 420/468/471, IPC and as such, he was discharged. However, in respect of the other point raised by the accused petitioner that the CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate and file charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate has held that after perusing the notification dated 21-1-61 the CBI has jurisdiction to investigate the case and file the charge-sheet.
5. Against the first point i.e. the charge-sheet of the accused petitioner, the CBI had filed a revision before this Court which was registered as Crl. Revision No. 179 of 1990 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15-5-2000 quashing the order of the learned Magistrate with a direction to frame proper charges and to proceed in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and vide order dated 3-5-2003 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad the petitioner was directed to appear for framing of charges. The learned Magistrate has observed that he had no other alternative except to frame charge as he is bound to obey the order of this Court. A point in respect of sanction was also raised that held non-maintainable in view of the specific directions of the High Court to frame the charges in accordance with law. There was already an order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate CBI, Dehradun passed earlier to the effect that the CBI has jurisdiction to investigate and file chargesheet but as the whole order was set aside by the High Court in revision it was always open for the Magistrate to see again whether the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate and file charge-sheet or not. But he has mentioned that he has no other alternative except to frame charges under the directions of the High Court. It may be noticed that this Court had directed the learned magistrate to frame charges in accordance with law. The words 'in accordance with law' do not debar the Magistrate to reconsider the jurisdiction or point of jurisdiction as the point of jurisdiction was not considered in revision as it was not de- cided by the CBI Magistrate and there was no occasion to challenge the same by the CBI in revision.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that there was no occasion for the petitioner to raise his contention as the learned Magistrate was not agreeing to make any interpretation of the order passed by this Court and as such without application of mind holding that there is no other option except to obey the orders of the High Court and frame the charges, passed the impugned order.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI has drawn attention of this Court towards Paragraphs 43 to 47 of the petition in which it has been stated that where parties to the legally executed contract have no grievance between themselves on any count it is understandable under law how the CBI as an investigating agency in all together different case could trust upon the GDA a party to the said contract that it has been cheated by such allotment whereas GDA had raised no such objection till date in respect of the said allotment. In fact GDA was gainer in the sense that its plot for which there were no offer from the public, was allotted to Smt. Kamla Mishra at general rate i.e. Sector rate and moreover the allottee did not gain anything in excess to what she was entitled for in her individual capacity as an ordinary citizen. The CBI should have first approached the appropriate Government apprising it about the allegations and thereafter if the Government was of the view that the sanction was required or otherwise, then only the CBI could have filed the charge-sheet.
8. The learned Magistrate had considered the notification filed before it. He has referred the notification dated 21-1-61 extending the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act in Uttar Pradesh and also the notification dated 7-3-1986 authorising the Public Prosecutors to plead the cases of CBI on behalf of the Central Government and held that the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate and file charge-sheet.
9. Sri Hajela learned standing counsel for the CBI asked for the time to get instructions. This Court on 26-4-2004 granted him time to obtain instruction. Further, on 27-4-2004 also he was granted time to obtain instructions to get the copies of the relevant notifications by today. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed copies of the notification before this Court, in which the notification referred in the order of the Magistrate dated 21-1-61 was also produced. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Sections 5 & 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which are quoted as under :-
"5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment to other areas - (1) The Central Government may by order extend to any area (including Railway areas) in (a State, not being a Union Territory) the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under Section 3.
(2) When by an order under sub-section (1) the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of the police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force.
(3) Where any such order under sub-section (1) is made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer- in-charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.
6. Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction - Nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in (a State, not being a Union territory or railway area), with- out the consent of the Government of that State."
10. A perusal of Section 5 of the Act would show that it has authorized the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in a State for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified In a notification under Section 3, but Section 6 debars the exercise of any of the functions by members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment without the consent of the Government of that State, in which they are to exercise the powers and jurisdiction. Therefore, if the notification had been issued by the Central Government extending powers and jurisdiction of a member of Delhi Special Police Establishment to any State including the Uttar Pradesh even then such powers and jurisdiction could not have been exercised without the consent of that State under Section 6.
11. The notification dated 21-1-61 has been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act in super session of previous Act or notification but in this notification it has not been mentioned that the consent of the State Government under Section 6 has been obtained, therefore, the notification issued under Section 5 empowering the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment does not mean that they can exercise their powers and jurisdiction without consent of the State Government under Section 6. Further this notification was superseded by fresh notification dated 18-2-63, which is quoted as under :-
"In exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (XXV of 1946), and in super session of the order of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. 25/7/60 AVD dated 21st January, 1961 the Central Govt. hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Maharashtra, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal for the investigation of offences specified in the Schedule annexed thereto."
The above notification was amended vide notification dated 1-4-64 extending some more Sections in the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
12. Therefore, a perusal of all the above notifications show that they were issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act but conferring such powers for exercise of powers and jurisdiction in State including State of U.P. could and cannot have been exercised without the consent of the U.P. State Government. It is also to be noticed that the charge-sheet was filed in the Court by the Sub-Inspector of Police CBI Delhi on 19-12-1988.
13. Sri P. P. Srivastava learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the following case laws laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, reported in AIR 1985 SC 195 : (1985 Cri LJ 516) as well as in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2001 SC 668, in which it has been held that only High Court and Supreme Court can direct for investigation by agency of the CBI. Even a Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to direct the CBI to investigate a matter, which is to be directed to the Officer Incharge of the local police station within a State. The relevant portion of paragraph i.e. paragraph 13 of the judgment and order in the case of State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal (supra), quoted as under (at page 200 of AIR) :-
"13. Before we proceed to closely examine the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties, it is proper to clear the ground and formulate the exact points Which require examination. It is certainly not for this Court at the present stage to examine and come to a conclusion as to whether this was a case of suicide or murder. If as a result of investigation evidence is gathered and a trial takes place the Sessions Judge will decide that controversy and it may be that in due course such controversy may be canvassed before this Court in some form or the other. It would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate at this stage to enter into such a question. One of the controversies which loomed large before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was as to the appointment of the DIG, CBI to inquire into the matter in the absence of proper consent of the State Government. That question has not been re-canvassed before us and it has been accepted by counsel for all the parties including and Additional Solicitor General that while Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ('Act' for short) would require the consent of the State Government before jurisdiction under Section 5 of that Act is exercised by officers of that establishment, when direction is given by the Court in an appropriate case, consent envisaged under Section 6 of the Act would not be a condition precedent to compliance with the Court's direction. In our considered opinion, Section 6 of the Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position."
14. Further, Paragraphs 2 and 12 of the case C.B.I. v. State of Rajasthan (supra) are also quoted as under :-
"2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in each case. The common feature in all the appeals is, when a complaint was filed before a Magistrate alleging serious offences, he ordered investigation to be conducted by the CBI and on completion of the investigation final report was required to be filed. We may now mention what happened thereafter to one of the cases before us. The CBI challenged the order of the Magistrate before the High Court of Delhi contending that the magistrate has no jurisdiction to order the CBI to conduct the investigation, at least without obtaining consent of the State Govt. concerned as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, ('Delhi Act' for short). The CBI sought support for the said contention from some of the earlier decisions rendered by single Judges of the Delhi High Court. When the matter was placed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, a contrary view was taken and the Bench held that the Magistrate has the power to do so. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in reaching the said view, has mainly relied on the observations made by the Court in State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, 1985 (1) SCC 317 : (AIR 1985 SC 195). Learned Judges highlighted the following observation contained in Sampatlal:-
"In our considered opinion, Section 6 of the Delhi Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position. In this view, the impugned order of the learned single judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG of CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attack for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Act."
"12. Section 5 of the Delhi Act enables the Central Govt. to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Police Establishment to any area in a State. Section 6 of the Delhi Act says that "nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State. A contention was made before us that when the State Government gives consent for the CBI to investigate any offence within the area of the State it would be permissible for the Magistrate to direct the officer of the CBI to conduct such investigation. What is envisaged in Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Act is not one of conferring power on a Magistrate to order the CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of Section 156(3) of the Code."
15. Learned standing counsel for CBI has placed reliance on a case law laid down by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court Hari Das Mundhra v. The State reported in AIR 1959 All 82, in which it has been held that even if for the sake of argument it be accepted that the extension of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to the State of Uttar Pradesh was improper, all that can be said is that he investigation by Sri Gurdas Mai was defective or illegal, but that in my opinion would not affect the investigation itself. The cognizance could still be taken by the Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, since in the case of CBI v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the plea was taken by the CBI challenging the order of the Magistrate in complaint case directing the CBI to make investigation that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct CBI to investigate the matter on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the CBI for investigation at least without obtaining consent of the State Government concerned as required under Section 6 of the Act. Further, it is also to be noticed that I there is complete bar in Section 6 of the Act | to exercise powers by the CBI conferred to it under Section 5 without consent of the State Govt. Since, it is a statutory provision, violation of the same is not permissible and would frustrate the purpose of Section 6. It is also a matter of consideration that in case the CBI is permitted to investigate a matter suo motu, there are other investigating agencies in the State of U. P. i.e. C.B. CID, U.P. Vigilance Deptt. and the Special Investigation Squads and if all these investigating agencies are allowed to make investigations suo motu without getting authority or consent, in that case so many parallel investigations would go on and there may be possibility that some agency may file chargesheet and some agency may submit final report in respect of the same incident/offence. Thus, it would affect the administration of justice. Therefore, with a view that there should be only one investigating agency at one time, the legislature has restricted all these agencies to make investigation suo motu and has enacted the law by way of commencement of Section 6 of the Act barring the investigation by the CBI without consent of the State, meaning thereby that only one way was left open i.e. lodging of FIR at the local police station, which will investigate the matter unless entrusted to any other investigating agency.
16. In view of the above, this Court is of the confirmed opinion that when there is a statutory provision to exercise the powers and jurisdiction by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment given under the Act, Section 6 of which does not permit to exercise such powers in the State without its consent, the CBI could not have exercised such powers suo motu without following the said statutory provision. The Hon'ble Apex Court is also of the view as laid down above in the case of Sampat Lal (supra) that in a matter where the State Police is to investigate the matter, the CBI should be entrusted the investigation only when there is an apprehension that fair and impartial investigation would not be done by the State agency.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, this Court has come to the conclusion that the CBI had no occasion to investigate and file a charge-sheet dated 28-12-1988 without consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Act.
18. In the result, the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is allowed. The charge-sheet filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate CBI, which is pending now at Ghaziabad dated 28-12-1988, is quashed. However, this will not debar the CBI to act in accordance with law in case there was any consent of the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 6 of the Act.