D NEDUNCHEZHIAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the order dismissing the W.P.No.15688 of 1989 filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash G.O.Ms.No.1216, Home (Transport II) Department, dated 30.5.1988, according sanction for prosecution of the appellant and others for offences under Secs.l20-B, I.P.C. read with secs.420,419,467,471,477 A, 161 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and sub-sec.(2) of Sec.5 read with clauses (a) and (b) of sub-sec(1) of Sec.5(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and for any other offences punishable under other provisions of law and for taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2.) IN 1985, certain Nationalised Banks in the city lodged complaints with the Central Bureau of INtelligence (hereinafter called C.B.I.) alleging that certain of the constituents who had availed the hire purchase loans to purchase second-hand lorries, had not repaid the loans and they are also not traceable. The C.B.I. made some of the Motor Vehicles INspectors of this State including the appellant as accused in the case alleging that they had allowed registration of the concerned vehicles in the State on pecuniary considerations. After investigation, the C.B.I. laid the charge sheet C.B.I. 1/87 before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras on 2.9.1987, against the appellant and others. IN April 1988, the C.B.I, made a request to the State Government to accord sanction to prosecute the appellant and other state Government Officials under Secs.l97(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent herein gave sanction as per the orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.1216 Home (Transport-II) Department dated 30.5.1988 permitting the C.B.I. to prosecute the appellant and others. IN the said G.O. the respondent has ordered that sanction was accorded to the C.B.I. to prosecute the appellant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and I.P.C. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.1216 referred to above reads thus:

(3.) BEFORE us, Mr.Govindswaminathan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the contentions urged before the learned Single Judge and submitted that the C.B.I. has power to investigate in the State of Tamil Nadu only against the Central Government Servants or officers belonging to public sector undertakings and into such offences that are duly notified by the Government of India and that the C.B.I. has no power to investigate into any case relating to the State Government Servants like the appellant or into offences concerning the enactments that are not notified by the Government of India. Elaborating the above point, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that under Sec.6 of the Act, the consent of the concerned State Government is necessary for enabling the C.B.I, to investigate in cases in any area within the said State and that the State of Tamil Nadu has not given its consent under Sec.6 of the Act with reference to the offences for which the appellant and other accused are charged to enable the C.B.I. to investigate the case against the appellant and others. The learned Counsel further submitted that clauses (i) and (ii) of the last para of the Letter No.SC/3036-1/81 dated 20.11.1981. will not cover the offences mentioned in the impugned order and consequently the investigation done by the C.B.I. in the case against the appellant and others for the offences mentioned in the impugned order is without jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and it is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions: