LexM. BALAKRISHNA REDDY versus DIRECTOR, CBI, NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 1154 A M. BALAKRISHNA REDDY v. DIRECTOR, CBI, NEW DELHI '(Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2008) 8 MARCH 14, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - ss. 6, 5 ~ and 3 - Consent of State Government to exercise powers and ,.. c ;urisdiction - Examination conducted by UPSC having head office at Delhi - Commission of offence under the Penal Code by Central Government employee at Bhopal in State of Madhya Pradesh - Prosecution by CBI against employee under the Delhi Act - Challenge to, on the ground that consent D not given by State - Held: State Government of Madhya Pradesh gave consent to Central Government as required u/ s 6 to enable the latter to invoke provisions of Delhi Act- Thus, prosecution by CBI against employee under Delhi Act not Without jurisdiction - Order of trial court as upheld by High E Court suffers from no infirmity - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 166. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 166 - Conduct of the business of the Government of a State - Nature and scope of The Union Public Service Commission conducted F examination in college at Bhopal. The appellant-Central Government Employee appeared and was allegedly found to be in possession of prewritten answer sheets, similar to the answer sheets supplied by the Examination Board. The confessional statement of the appellant was recorded. G The matter was reported to UPSC Head Office at New Delhi. A preliminary inquiry was instituted. The Secretary, UPSC lodged a criminal case against the appellant for offences punishable under sections 420, 471, 474, 467, 468 and 417 read with section 511 IPC. Charge-sheet was H 1154 ' -f M. BALAKRISHNA REDDY v. DIRECTOR, CBI, 1155 NEW DELHI filed in the Court of Special Magistrate. Appellant raised A preliminary objection before the Magistrat~ that since the alleged offences had been committed at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, CBI had no power, authority or jurisdiction to institute criminal proceedings; and that before initiating proceedings under the Delhi Special B Police Establishment Act, 1946, the consent of the State Government was required which was not given by the State. The preliminary objection was rejected. Aggrieved appellant filed Revision. High Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal. c Appellant contended that the High Court was wrong · in holding that the proceedings against the appellant could have been initiated by CBI and that the Delhi Act would apply for cognizance of offences committed by him as a Central Government employee; that the direction D issued by the High Court was ex facie erroneous; that when alleged offence was committed by the appellant in Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Police Authorities of the State alone could have initiated proceedings against the accused; that before invoking the provisions E of the Delhi Act, consent of the State Government is mandatory; that the provision as to consent of the State Government must be complied with in letter and spirit and such consent should be in proper form as required by law; that the consent required under the Act is of the 'State F Government'; that the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution are mandatory and before any action is taken, they are required to be strictly complied with and if the procedure laid down in the said Article is not followed, such consent cannot be said to be legal, valid and in G consonance with law and CBI does not get jurisdiction in the matter; that the letter by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi which purportedly records the consent of the State Government H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 ·s.C.R. A to the exercise of. powers and jurisdiction of the Delhi State Po.lice Establishment to the State of Mad.hya Pradesh is in the nat.u.re of 'inter-Departmental communic~tion' by the Deputy Secretary to the State of Madhya Pradesh tQ the Secretary to Central Government B and cannot be regarded as consent under Sectioh 6 of the Act; and that the orders passed by the Courts below sho~ld b.e s~taside by quashing the pro.ceedirigs initiated · by CBI against the appellant.· · Respondents contended that the High Court C considered the order dated 05.02.1957 in its proper p~rspective and held that the State of Madhya P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.