KAZI LHENDUP DORJI versus THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 29-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
KAZI LHENDUP DORJI 
v. 
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 1994 
[S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
C1intinal Law--:Prosecution-Delhi Special Police Establislunent Act, 
1946-Section 6-Withdrawal of consent given by State Govemment u/s 
6-Whether pennissible-Effect on matter pending investigation-Applicability C 
of S. 21 of the General Clauses Act-Extent of 
General Clauses Act-Section 3(58}-Expression 'State'-Meaning of 
Constitution of India-Entry 80 of List I, Schedule Vll-EXpression 
'State'-Whether includes 'Union Territory'-Legislative competence of Par-
D 
liament to enact sections 5 and 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 
1946. 
Words & Phrases : 'State'-Meaning of in the context of s. 3(58) of 
General Clauses Act. 
The Government of Sikkim conveyed the consent of the State 
Government under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 
1946, to the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in exercis-
E 
ing powers and jurisdiction on the whole of the State of Sikkim for the 
investigation of the offences punishable under various provision of the F 
Indian Penal Code as well as offences under various other enactments. 
Respondent No.4 was the Chief Munister of Sikkim during the period 1979 
to 1984. when he ceased to be the Chief Minister, a case was registered by 
the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.R.!.) for offences punishable u/s 
5(2) r/w s.S(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. While the matters 
were U!Jder investigation respondent No.4 again became the Chief Minister 
of Sikkim. By a notification dated January 7, 1987, it was notified that all 
G 
consents of or on behalf of the State Government for investigation of 
offences by C.B.J. under section 6 of the Act, were withdrawn and stood 
cancelled with immediate effect. As a consequence of the Notification, 
C.B.I. suspended further action in the two cases registered against respon-
H 
201 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
dent No. 4. The petitioner, a former Chief Minister of Sikkim, filed this 
Writ Petition praying for quashing of the Notifiction. 
The petitioner contended that there is no provision under the Act 
which empowers the State Government to withdraw the consent which has 
been accorded. It is urged that even if section 21 of the General Clauses 
B Act is held to be applicable so as to permit withdrawal of consent given 
u/s 6, such withdrawal of conse.nt cannot be related to an investigation 
which has started on the basis of consent granted earlier. 
The State of Sikkim has assailed the validity of section 6 of the Act 
C on the ground of legislative competence of Parliament to make a law 
providing for extension of powers and jurisdiction of members of a police 
force belonging to a Union Territory to any area outside the Union Ter-
ritory. 
D 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act does not confer 
a power to issue an order having retrospective operation. Even if section 
21 is held applicable to an order passed under section 6 of the Delhi 
I 
I 
Special Police Establishment Act, an order revoking an order giving 
"' 
E consent under section 6 can have only prospective operation and would 
not affect matters in which action bas been initiated prior to the issuance 
of the order of revocation. It would mean that in the instant case, 
investigation which was commenced by C.B.I. prior to withdrawal of 
consent under the Notification dated January 7, 1987, had to be 
F completed and It was not affected by the said withdrawal of consent. The 
C.B.I. was competent to complete the investigation in the cases registered 
by it against respondent No. 4 and other persons and submit the report 
under section 173 Cr. P.C in the competent court. [pp. 211E-H; 212-A) 
Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gutta Mill Workers Union, 
G [1963] SCR 439, relied on. 
1.2. Parliament was competent to enact section 6 as the Act. The 
expression "State" in Entry 80 of List I in the Seventh Schedule to the 
Constitution includes "Union territory'' in view of the definition of "State" 
H contained in section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, and members of 
\ 
\ 
·--
KL. DORJJ v. C.B.I. [AGRAWAL.J.] 
203 
police force belonging to the Union Territory can have their powers and A 
jurisdiction extended to another State provided the Government of that 
State consents. [p. 210-C-D] 
Management of Advance Ins

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