CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, IAS AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 10-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
v. 
RA VI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, !AS AND ANR. 
AUGUST JO, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AL TAMAS KABIR,JJ.] 
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-Section 5-Consent of 
State for operation of Act-~Held---Letter of Special Officer (Home), Secretary, 
C Department is not sufficient to establish withdrawal of consent given by State 
through of notification-JI was more so as authority to write such letter was 
not established and notification granting consent had not been revoked--
Such letter does not meet requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution and 
is not even conceptually a notification-Also, consent of State is not required 
to be in respect of each of officer of force constituted under the Act. 
D 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--Section 482-Scope of-Discussed 
Appellant registered a FIR against respondent under the Delhi Special 
Police Establishment Act, 1946 alleging commission of various offences. 
Respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
E Procedure, l 973 for quashing the FIR on the ground that appellant had no 
jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Act of 1947 as consent necessary 
by the State for operation of the Act of l 946 given in the year l 956 (a) had 
been withdrawn as evidenced from the letter of the Special Officer (Home), 
Secretary, Department (b) had neither been subsequently extended nor. did it 
F relate to any particular offer. The High Court allowed the petition. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the (a) the High Court lost sight of fact that 
the notification issued under Section 5 of the Act of l 946 had not been 
rescinded or revoked at any point of time (b) an inter departmental 
G communication was treated as a notification to hold that the State Government 
had not extended the notification; the authority of the person who wrote that 
letter has not been established; and same cannot be treated to be one covered 
under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (c) no specific order is 
required in respect of each officer (d) prayer of the respondent could not have 
H 
450 
--·· .. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF JNVESTIGA TION v. RA VI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, !AS 
4 51 
been adjudicated in a petition instituted under Section 482 of the Code of A 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD I. The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings 
instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged. [ 461-C] 
B 
2. There is no notification revoking the earlier notification. The 
authority to write the letter, on which the respondent relied, has not been 
indicated. It has also not been established that the person was authorized to 
take a decision. In any event, the same does not meet requirements of Article 
166 of the Constitution. The letter is not even conceptually a notification. High C 
Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that there was a notification 
rescinding earlier notification. [416-B, CJ 
3. Consent of the State for operation of the Act of1946 was not required 
in respect of each of the officer of the force constituted therein. (460-F-H] 
Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1996) 
9 SCC 735 and Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR (1961) SC 1762, 
relied on. 
D 
4. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this 
nature is the exception and not the rule. (443-F, G) 
E 
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR (1960) SC 866 and State of Haryana 
v. Bhajan Lal, [1992] Supp 1 335, relied on. 
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, Raghubhir Saran 
(Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR (1964) SC I, Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, F 
(19901 Supp SCC 686, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, AIR (1996) SC 309, 
Rupan Deal Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, [1995[ 6 SCC 194, State of Kera/a 
v. 0. C. Kuttam, AIR (1999) SC 1044, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, [1996) 7 
SCC 705, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (19971 2 SCC 397, 
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCTof Delhi), AIR (1996) SC 2983, Rajesh G 
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and State of Karnataka v. M. 
Devendrappa and Anr., [2002) 3 SCC 89, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 
2002. 
H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2001 of the High Court Judicature 
'at Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 93/2001. 
A.K. Panda, S. Was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.