M/S. FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD AND ORS. ETC. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ETC.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 17-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
M/S. FERTICO MARKETING AND
INVESTMENT PVT. LTD AND ORS. ETC.
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
AND ANOTHER ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 760-764 of 2020 Etc.)
NOVEMBER 17, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946:
s.6 – Consent under – Scope of – FIR by CBI alleging offences
u/ss. 120B and 420 IPC and s. 13(2) r/w. s. 13(1)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – Against Director of coal-
purchasing company and unknown public servants – During
investigation two public servants of the State Government were found
to be part of the conspiracy – Charge-sheet filed against the Director
of the coal-purchasing company and against the public servants
after obtaining sanction u/s. 19 of PC Act – Petitions u/s. 482 Cr.
P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings – Single Judge
of High Court dismissed the petitions holding that post-facto consent
after completion of investigation would be a valid consent u/s. 6 –
Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: As regards private individuals no
consent is required u/s. 6 and hence there was no embargo in
registering FIR against them – As regards public servants, the post-
facto consent u/s. 6 given by the State Government  was valid – The
public servants have also not been able to show any prejudice
caused to them or any miscarriage of justice, in absence of prior
consent u/s. 6 – Matter remitted to High Court to decide other issues
raised before the High Court – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
– s.482.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Though Section 5 of Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) enables the Central
Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of Members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) beyond the
Union Territories to a State, the same is not permissible unless,
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 956
956
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
a State grants its consent for such an extension within the area of
State concerned under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Obviously the
provisions are in tune with the federal character of the
Constitution, which has been held to be one of the basic structures
of the Constitution. The State of Uttar Pradesh has accorded a
general consent for extension of powers and jurisdiction of the
Members of DSPE, in the whole of State of Uttar Pradesh for
investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to all
or any of the offence or offences committed in the course of the
transaction and arising out of the same facts. The same is however
with a rider, that no such investigation shall be taken up in cases
relating to the public servants, under the control of the State
Government, except with prior permission of the State
Government. [Paras 11, 13][966-E-F; 967-E-F]
2. Insofar as the private individuals are concerned, there
is no embargo with regard to registration of FIR against them
inasmuch as, no specific consent would be required under Section
6 of the DSPE Act. Vide notification dated 15th June 1989, the
State of Uttar Pradesh has accorded a general consent thereby,
enabling the Members of DSPE to exercise powers and
jurisdiction in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh with regard to
investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and also to all or any of the offence or offences committed
in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts. As such, for registration of FIR against the private
individuals for the offences punishable under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and other offences under the IPC, committed in
the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts, the Members of DSPE have all the powers and jurisdiction.
As such, there are no merits in the appeals filed by the private
individuals. [Para 13][967-F-H; 968-A-B]
3.1 Insofar as the two public servants in the present case
are concerned, who have undoubtedly been working under the
State Government, initially, were not named in the FIR. However,
their names surfaced during the course of investigation and thus
sanction was granted for their prosecution under Section 19 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act vide order dated 31st May 2012,
M/S. FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
prior to filing of the charge-sheet. It is also not in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.