C RAGHUNATHAN Vs. STATE BY C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petition coming on for admission, the learned counsel is heard regarding maintainability of the present petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on the basis of a complaint lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (Hereinafter referred to as 'the CBI' for brevity), the Inspector of Police of the CBI, had laid a trap and it is alleged that the petitioner was caught red-handed while receiving illegal gratification. It was alleged that the petitioner, along with two others, had entered into a criminal conspiracy in obtaining such illegal gratification and in issuing a letter of appointment to the complainant. According to the complainant, accused no.2 had contacted the complainant on 3.12.2003 and demanded a bribe of Rs.80,000/-, out of which, Rs.25,000/- was to be paid as advance to accused no.1, the petitioner herein. While at the same time, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had demanded any bribe amount from the complainant. The respondent � CBI had registered a case in Crime No.RC29(A)/2003 on 13.12.2003 and completed the investigation on 13.8.2004 and a charge-sheet had been submitted on 16.8.2004 before the trial court requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence and issue process to the accused.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Hereinafter referred to as the '1946 Act' for brevity), it is imperative that no member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, including the CBI could exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or a Railway area without the consent of the Government of that State. He would point out that though the respondent - CBI had obtained the consent of the State Government as on 8.1.2004, the investigation had been commenced much earlier and had progressed substantially before any such consent of the State Government was sought for and therefore, the entire investigation stood vitiated for want of appropriate consent by the State Government, even before the commencement of the investigation by the CBI. This mandatory requirement under the Section has been completely overlooked by the trial court in rejecting the application, even though the admitted circumstance is that there was no prior consent of the State Government enabling the respondent � CBI to commence and carry on investigation before it could apply and obtain the consent of the State Government, even if such consent has been obtained.