K. CHANDRASEKHAR ETC. versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 29-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. CHANDRASEKHAR ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
APRIL 29, 1998 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1944-Section 6-
Investigation-Notification issued entrusting a case to CB.I. with consent 
of the concerned State Government-CB.I. completed investigation and 
C submitted final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C-Subsequent withdrawal 
of consent by State Government for further investigation of case by State 
police-Held, invalid & unsustainable in law. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 173(8) 
'Further investigation '-Meaning of-Continuation of the earlier 
D investigation-Not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation starting ab-inito, 
wiping out the earlier investigation. 
Words and phrases; 
'Further Investigation' Meaning of in the context of Cr. P.C. 
In pursuance of provisions of Section-6 of the Delhi Special Police 
E Establishment Act, 1944 the Government of Kera la, issued notification on 
02.12.1994 and entrusted the investigation to the CBI of Crime No. 225/94 
and 246/94 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, involving charges of espionage 
against the accused. CBI took up investigation and filed its final report in 
final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The appellants were discharged on 
acceptance of the final report of CBI as the allegations of espionage were 
F not proved. Thereafter, by notification dated 27 June, 1996 which was followed 
by amendatory notification dated 8 July, 1996, the Government of Kerala 
withdrew the consent earlier given to CBI to investigate Crime No. 246/94, 
for further investigation. 
Aggrieved by the notification the six accused appellants herein filed 
G separate Writ Petitions before Kera la High Court Which were dismissed. 
It was held that the matter of giving or withholding of consent under'Section 
6 of the act was an executive action of the State Government and Section 21 
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied to the notification in question and 
therefore, the withdrawal of consent cannot be said to be invalid. 
In these appeals, the judgment of High Court is challenged by Director 
H CBI, UOI and the six discharged accused persons. 
72 
> 
K. CHANDRASEKHAR v. SA TE OF KERALA 
73 
Before this Court CBI and UOI (the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. A 
494-497 of 1997) submitted that the provision under Section 6 of the act 
having exhausted nothing remained for reversing the exercise of such a 
power and thus the question of applying the provisions of Section 21 of the 
General Clause Act could not arise. 
The counsel on behalf of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 491/97, B 
relying on Kazi Lhendup Dorji 's, Case submitted that once consent was given 
by a State Government empowering the CBI to investigate into an offence, 
the former could not withdraw the same and the withdrawal of this consent 
was a malafide action on the part of the government of Kera la, 
The Respondents on the basis of law laid down in A. C. Sharma' s, Case c 
submitted that the power of CBI to investigate into the offence in question 
was not exclusive but concurrent with the State Police and also that Section 
21 of the General Clauses Act was applicable to conferment of administrative 
power only and not to conferment of judicial or quasi judicial powers and 
since grant of consent under Section 6 of the Act was merely an D 
, administrative power, withdrawal thereof would be permissible under that 
section. 
Allowing these appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The investigation started by CBI with the consent of the E 
State GovernD)ent concerned cannot be stopped midway by withdrawing the 
consent; If any further investigation is to be made it is the C.B.I. alone which 
can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State 
Government. Therefore, the notification issued withdrawing the consent to 
enable to State Police to further investigate into the case is invalid and F 
unsustainable in law. The dictionary meaning of the word 'further' (when 
used as an adjective) is 'additional', 'more', 'supplemental'. 'Further' 
investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and 
not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab-initio wiping out 
the earlier investigation altogether, Sub-Section (8) clearly envisages that 
on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward G 
to the Magistrate a 'further' report or reports-and not fresh report or 
repor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.