MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. B C GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Revisional Application under section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner -accused has prayed the Court for quashing of the charge -sheet dated 29th December, 1989, in connection with the First Information Report dated 17th June, 1986, being Annexure 'A' thereto, on the grounds made out therein. It was, however, mainly belatedly urged during the hearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the C.B.I. Authorities, who had investigated into the relevant case and had submitted the aforesaid charge -sheet, was not entitled to investigate the alleged offence against him, having no jurisdiction to investigate the matter within the State without the consent of the State. It was also, secondly, urged that the Petitioner was entitled to be discharged in view of the amended provisions of section 167(5) of the Code, the investigation of the relevant case not having been completed within the period prescribed therein.

(2.) BUT upon hearing the submission of the Learned Advocates for both sides and perusal of the materials on record the grounds so sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner clearly appear to be entirely ill -made for the reasons, I shall presently discuss.

(3.) TO the first ground urged first - The Learned Advocate for the Petitioner -accused referring me to the relevant provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, more particularly, sections 5 and 6 thereof, had urged, as already indicated above, that the C.B.I, which had investigated the relevant case and had submitted charge -sheet, was not entitled to investigate the alleged offence against him, having no jurisdiction to investigate the matter within the State without the consent of the State in terms thereof. But to that I would at once note with a minute of dissent, following the decisions of this Court in A.K. Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and another, and T.K. Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Anr., and S.N. Beri v. State of West Bengal and another, (1979)2 Calcutta Law Journal 150 and Purnima Parolia and others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (1992)1 Calcutta Law Journal 482, with which I completely concur, that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Ordinance was passed by the Governor -General of India in 1943, and this was replaced by an Ordinance in 1946. Ultimately, the Delhi Police Establishment Act was passed to constitute a police force in Delhi for investigation of offences in the Union Territories and to empower the members of the said police force to investigate such offences committed in a State with the consent of the Government of that particular State. The Delhi Special Police Establishment is a police force constituted in Delhi and with the consent of the respective Governments it can function in different States. The same police force functions in a particular State to which it has been extended, but does not constitute a force in that State. By a Notification dated 6th November, 1956 the Central Government had notified that the offences under sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code may be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Act. By another Notification dated 19th February, 1963, the Central Government had extended the powers and jurisdiction of the members of that Establishment to various States, including West Bengal. The Government of West Bengal by a Notification dated 21st April, 1960 has consented to the Delhi Special Police Establishment exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of West Bengal. That being so, the said Establishment is clearly competent to investigate the alleged offences, in which a charge -sheet dated 29th December, 1989 has been submitted against the accused in the relevant case. The first submission made on behalf of the Petitioner must clearly fail as such.