ABDUL HANNAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTI-GATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to dispose of all the criminal revision petitions by this common judgment since a common question of law, based on similar facts, is involved therein. The accused persons in CBI FIR No. RC 2/S/2007-Kol dated 21.6.2007 have filed the criminal petitions/revision petitions under Sections 482 /397 /401 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the aforesaid FIR, subsequently registered as Complaint Case No. 763 of 2010 in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate Assam, Guwahati after filing of the charge-sheets. One set of the charge-sheets were filed on 14.1.2009 and in one case the charge sheet was submitted on 1.3.2010. Some of the accused persons have been charge sheeted under Sections 120B /420 /471 and some of the accused persons have been charge-sheeted only under Sections 420/471 and in some cases charge-sheets have been submitted under Sections 120B /419 /420 /468 /471 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of the charge-sheets processes were issued and cognizance of the charge sheets was taken by the court. After making their appearances, the accused persons filed individual petitions challenging the authority of the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBF" in short) to investigate the case on the ground that the CBI had no jurisdiction to investigate the case in Assam without first obtaining consent from the State Government, as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (briefly the "Act"). Hence, the accused persons have approached this court praying for quashing the criminal proceedings and also the orders whereby the learned Special Judicial Magistrate has rejected their petitions in this regard.

(2.) Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, Mr. N. Dutta and Mr. A.B. Choudhury learned Sr. counsels for the petitioners. The CBI was represented by its Standing Counsel, Mr. A.C. Buragohain. Also heard Ms. Verma, learned counsel for the Family Welfare and Health Department, Govt. of Assam.

(3.) The challenge to the charge-sheets submitted by the CBI revolves around its jurisdiction to investigate the offences that took place in Assam without first obtaining consent from the State Government. Referring to Section 6 of the Act the learned Sr. counsels for the petitioners made forceful representation that no offence, committed in a State, can be investigated by the CBI without prior approval from the State Govt. According to the learned counsels the language of Section 6 is unambiguous with regard to obtaining of prior approval from the concerned State, even if the offences are covered by the Notifications issued under Section 3 and power of investigation is vested upon the CBI under Section 5 of the Act. In support of this submission, the learned counsels referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, rendered in the case of M. Balakrishna Reddy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, 2008 4 SCC 409, State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. The Committee for PDR, West Bengal & Ors.,2010 2 GauLT SC 1 and Rangku Dutta @ Ranjan Kumar Dutta Vs. State of Assam, 2011 3 GauLT 12. The learned counsels also argued that if an investigation and/or enquiry are to be done in a particular manner the same should be carried out strictly in accordance with law and there should be no deviation from the laid down procedure. In support of this submission the learned counsels referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Privy Council; rendered in the case of Nazir Ahmed Vs. King-Emperor, 1936 AIR(PC) 253