N NAGAMBIKADEVI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is arraigned as Accused 4 in Cr. No. RC/22 (A)/2000 by the respondent/central Bureau of Investigation has come up in this petition to quash the proceedings.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :

(3.) SRI. C. V. Nagesh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the initiation of the proceedings in the aforesaid crime against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. As such the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned is liable to be quashed. Highlighting this contention, it is contended that under the Scheme of DSPE Act the initial jurisdiction of the CBI, as per Section 2 of the DSPE Act is confined to Union Territory and by virtue of Section 5 of the DSPE Act the powers and jurisdiction of the CBI (Special Police Establishment) can be extended to any area by the Central Government and even then as per Section 6 of the DSPE Act this extension of power and jurisdiction has to be consented by the Government of the concerned State to which DSPE Act is made applicable. It is contended that by looking into the provisions of the DSPE Act, especially Sections 3 and 5, there appears to be a mandatory requirement of a notification in the Official Gazette published so as to extend the jurisdiction of the CBI for investigation in a State. It is also contended that, if the entire records of the case are perused, it is apparent that initially the case was registered against other accused, viz. Smt. Shanthakumari, Sri. Shashtri and Sri Rathnakar, on the other alleged consent of the Government. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no such consent obtained from or given by the State Government of Karnataka much-less the publication as a notification in the Official Gazette. As such, the prosecution and initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner by the CBI which has no jurisdiction by non-extension of the power, is totally illegal and without jurisdiction and hence on this count alone the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is further contended that the consent dated 5-8-2000 relied upon by the respondent, even if is valid against the accused Sri. Rathnakar and Smt. Shanthakumari in that sanction there is no renference at all to the petitioner and as such, mere taking cue from the words "and the suspect officials and any other public servant or person in relation to or in connection with the said offences and other offences committed in the course of transaction arising out of the same," the petitioner cannot be tugged in as a co-accused. It is contended that this is not a consent at all so far as the petitioner is concerned. As such, it is argued that the registration of the case against the petitioner is ab initio void, as there is no mandatory notification under Section 6 of the DSPE Act read with Sections 3 and 5 as well as Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act is issued and, further, as there is no notification issued in this regard as per Section 2 (m) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Gazette the proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 Delhi 206 (FB ).