MANJIT SINGH BALI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question which falls for my consideration in these criminal applications is: what is the meaning of the expression 'cases involving arrest of a person on the spot' which is used in section 6-A(2)

(2.) Both the applicants have filed these applications to quash R.C. Case No. BA1/ 2010/A0006 dated 18th February, 2010 registered by CBI against the applicants under sections 7 & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in Criminal Application No. 1913 of 2010 submitted that in view of the provisions of section 6-A of the DSPE Act, initiation of investigation and any subsequent prosecution is without jurisdiction and the CBI had no authority whatsoever to register a case against the public servant of the rank of Joint Secretary and above without obtaining previous approval of the Central Government and, therefore, on this ground alone, the FIR was liable to be quashed. He submitted that there are several judgments of the Apex Court right from the judgment in R.P. Kapur vs. The State of Punjab,2009 ALLSCR 801, State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others, 1992 AIR(SC) 604 and in Ashim Kumar Roy vs. Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta and Others, 1998 SCC(Cri) 269 wherein it has been held that if there is a statutory bar imposed by the Act then the FIR so filed and the investigation initiated on the basis of the said FIR is liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. R.R. Kishore vs. CBI, 2007 142 DLT 702. It is submitted that if the objection regarding lack of jurisdiction under section 6-A of the Act is raised at the very inception then further investigation is liable to be stayed and the FIR could be quashed. It is submitted that section 6-A of the DSPE Act was amended by the Central Vigilance and Commission Act in the year 2003 and by virtue of the amendment, prior approval of the Central Government is necessary in the case of inquiry/ investigation against the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above. It is submitted that the DSPE Act is the only Act in which obtaining prior approval is made compulsory. It is submitted that the said bar in the section operates from inception i.e. from the time of the information received by the CBI about commission or likelihood of commission of such offence by the employee above certain rank in the Central Government. It is submitted that sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the DSPE Act permitted the CBI to arrest a person on the spot, meaning thereby that the CBI would invoke the said section only in cases of a chance arrest of a public servant on the spot while accepting or attempting to accept any gratification without any prior information about the same. It is submitted that, in the present case, the CBI was aware of the complaint being received on 16/ 02/2010 and, therefore, it had sufficient time to obtain prior approval and, instead of doing that, it had registered the FIR on 18/02/2010 and on 24/02/2010, it conducted a raid. It is, therefore, submitted that this is not a case where the CBI had arrested the accused on the spot. It is submitted that the CBI had an ample time to deliberate and take prior approval after the complaint was received on 16/02/2010. Reliance is also placed on remand application dated 03/03/2010. It is submitted that subsection (2) of section 6-A of the DSPE Act dealt with the situation where obtaining prior approval of the Central Government would be entirely illogical or contrary or inconsistent to the demand of the situation indicated in the said sub-section. It is submitted that the words 'on the spot' clearly depict the legislative intent that where in the view of the Act any employee or officer as mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) respectively of section 6- A(1) is found to be accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than any remuneration, the CBI need not await for the approval of the Central Government. It is submitted that, in the instant case, a complaint/letter was sent by the complainant on 16/02/2010 and the FIR was registered against the applicant on 18/2/2010. The CBI started conducting the inquiry/ investigation from 18/02/2010, leading to the arrest of the applicant on 25/02/2010. It is, therefore, submitted that the said arrest of the applicant was not "on the spot" arrest as envisaged under sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the DSPE Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the arrest of the applicant was not covered under sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the DSPE Act.