CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH S.P. JAIPUR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 19-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH S.P. JAIPUR 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
JANUARY 19, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Section 156(3)-Cognizable cases-Investigation of-Powers of 
C Magistrate-Whether Magistrate can order investigation by CBI-Held: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Magistrate has the power only to order an officer-in-charge of a police 
station to conduct investigation-Magistrate has no power to order CBI to 
conduct investigation under Section 156(3)-Delhi Special Police 
Establishment Act, 1946, Sections 5 and 6. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Police station" and "Officer-in-charge of a Police station "-Meaning 
of-In the context of Sections 2(s) and 2(o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973. 
~ 
A complaint was filed before a magistrate alleging serious offences 
and he ordered investigation to be conducted by the CBI and on completion 
of the investigation final report was required to be filed. The appellant-CBI 
challenged the order of the magistrate before the High Court contending 
that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the CBI to conduct the 
investigation, at least without obtaining the consent of the State Government 
concerned as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police 
Establishment Act, 1946. The High Court held that the magistrate had the 
power to do so. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The power to order the investigation referred to in Section 
156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is contained in Section 
156(3) because the words "order such a investigation as above-mentioned" 
in sub section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-
H section. Thus the power is to order an "officer-in-charge of a police station" 
472 
CB.I. THROUGH S.P . .JAIPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
473 
to conduct investigation. 1476-A-BI 
2. It is clear that a place or post declared by the Government as police 
station under Section 2(s) of the Code must have a police officer-in-charge 
of it as defined in Section 2(o) of the Code and if he, for any reason, is absent 
A 
in the station house, the officer who is in next junior rank present in the 
police station, shall perform the function as Officer-in-charge of that police B 
station. The primary resposbility for conducting investigation into offences 
in cognizable cases vests with such police officer. Section 1S6(3) of the Code 
empowers a megistrate to direct such officer-in-charge of the police station 
to investigate any cognizable case over which such magistrate has jurisdiction. 
[476-E-GI C 
3.1. Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 
1946 do not confer power on a magistrate to order the CBI to conduct 
investigation in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code. Therefore, 
the magisterial power cannot be streched under Section 156(3) of the Code 
beyond directing the Officer-in-charge of a police station to conduct the D 
investigation. [478-A-B; G-H) 
State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, 11985) 1SCC317, held inapplicable. 
_,,.. 
3.2. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution 
and of the Supereme Court under Article 32 or Article 142(1) of the 
Constitution can be invoked, though sparingly, for giving such direction to E 
the CBito investigate in certain cases. [478-8-Cj 
Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, (1988) Supp. SCC 482; Maniyeri 
Madhavan v. Sub-Inspect ore of Police, [ 1994) 1 SCC 536; Mohammed Anis 
,. 
v. Union of India, 11994) Supp. 1 SCC 145 and State of Kera/av. Moosa 
Haji, (1993) 2 KLT 609, reffered to. 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1162 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.1997 in SBCRL 743/96 of the 
High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos.1163-66/98 and 42/2001 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Indira Jaising, T.C. 
G 
Sharma, Heman! Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Sumita Inna, Sushil 
Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, lndeevar Goodwill (N.P), Ms. Manjula Gupta, H 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] l S.C.R. 
A Ms. Sanjay Ghosh; Ms. Anuja, Rohit Minocha, B.D. Sharma, Ajay Chaudhary, 
Sanjay Bansal and G.K. Bansal for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Has a magistrate power to direct the Central Bureau of 
B Investigation to conduct investigation into any o:fence? This question, 
seemingly ingenuous, has become compounded with divergent verdicts 
pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.