HARI PADO BISWAS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing and setting aside of the impugned investigation in respect of accused Sri Hari Pado Biswas, President of National Youth Project, Arunachal Pradesh, being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBl), ACB, Guwahati Branch, in connection with RC 0172015 A0005 dated 22.06.2015 u/ss. 13 (2)/1 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 120B/420/467/ 468/471 IPC, alleging violation of mandatory provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, whereby exercising the powers and jurisdiction of investigation by the CBI in the State of Arunachal Pradesh without approval of the State Government in respect of the petitioner's Society.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, is that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Guwahati, has suo motu registered a case bearing registration No. RC 0172015 dated 22.06.2015 u/ss. 13(2)/1 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC, against five central Government employees of Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC, for short), H Sector, Itanagar, namely (1). Sri Amit Pura Chobin, (2). Sri Ajaz Asghar, the then Development Officer, KVIC, H-Sector, Itanagar, (3). Sri Dhanraj Lama, the then Assistant Development Officer, KVIC, H-Sector, Itanagar, (4) Sri Jitendra Prasad Singha, the then Superintendent, KVIC, H-Sector, Itanagar, and (5). Sri Jyothish Chandra Deka, the then Supervisor, KVIC, H-Sector, Itanagar. The petitioner, herein, has also been arrayed as accused No. 6 in the case allegedly for having preparing forged bills/cash memos in connivance with the aforesaid central Government employees. As per the First Information Report(FIR) dated 22.06.2015 of the CBI, the involvement of the petitioner/NGO has been found subsequently. Though the respondent is not required to obtain prior approval/consent of the Central Government in order to register and investigate an offence against the employees of the Central Government, however, the CBI is required to obtain prior approval/con-sent of the State Government if it intends to exercise the powers and jurisdiction of their investigation in a State as mandated under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) cannot assume the jurisdiction without the consent of the State Government by bye-passing the mandatory provision of Section 6 of the said Act. In other words, according to the Learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent CBI cannot suo motu enter into the State jurisdiction in a casual manner at its own free will. The said act of the CBI is highly illegal.

(3.) The petitioner while denying the entire allegations as made in the First Information Report(FIR) in question, has submitted that provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not attract to a non-public servant. It can be charged only against a public servant which is defined under Section 21 of the IPC. The petitioner being a non-public servant, cannot be charged under Section 13 of the said Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As such, according to the petitioner, the Anti-Corruption Court would also lack its jurisdiction in trying the offence at the event of the case being filed into charge sheet. It is the mandate of Section 4 of the said Act of 1988 that in order to try a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the accused has to be charged under the said Act. However, other substantive real penal sections could be tried provided the accused is charged under the provisions of the said Act of 1988.