CBI's Jurisdiction Ceases If Chargesheet Lacks PC Act Offences; Specific State Consent Needed To Prosecute: Meghalaya High Court
The Meghalaya High Court recently ruled that the CBI is well within its right to investigate offences under IPC provided they are in nexus with offences under prevention of corruption act. However when the offences under the provisions of the PC Act are dropped from the chargesheet, for CBI to continue its prosecution, specific consent of the State is required as Jurisdiction of the CBI...
The Meghalaya High Court recently ruled that the CBI is well within its right to investigate offences under IPC provided they are in nexus with offences under prevention of corruption act. However when the offences under the provisions of the PC Act are dropped from the chargesheet, for CBI to continue its prosecution, specific consent of the State is required as Jurisdiction of the CBI would cease as on the date of filing of such charge sheet, it clarified.
The observations were made Justice W. Diengdoh while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Court with a prayer to set aside and quash the FIR filed by the Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Shillong and a consequent chargesheet being filed leading to the formal proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong.
The petitioner premised his challenge primarily on the ground that no offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act have been made out, but instead only offences under the Indian Penal Code are said to have been committed by the petitioner and as such, the locus of the CBI as complainant was questionable and the said charge sheet against the petitioner ought not to have been filed in court.
In the instant matter the petitioner was the Chairman of a Security and Service Organisation dealing mostly in the area of outsourcing of manpower to various organisation requiring such manpower along with two other public servants working with North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (NEIGRIHMS). They were charged by the respondent/CBI under Section 120(B)/420 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
On the matter being investigated, the Investigating Officer had then filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, exonerating the role of the two public servants respectively, on the ground of insufficient evidence, but the petitioner herein as having committed an offence under Section 420, 406 IPC for allegedly fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriating an amount of ₹ 20,93,305/-.
Per contra, respondents submitted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was empowered under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, to investigate into offences under the Indian Penal Code, including offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC respectively on the strength of a notification issued by the Central Government pursuant to the provision under Section 3 of the said DSPE Act.
Giving anxious consideration to the contentions of the opposite sides the bench observed that Section 6 of the said DSPE Act is amply clear that if the CBI is to operate in any of the States, consent of such State Government for exercise of its powers and jurisdiction is required. CBI can investigate into cases involving offences under the PC Act, however, when it comes to offences under the IPC which are generally taken up and investigated into by the State, if a particular case involves provisions of offences under the PC Act as well as IPC then the CBI would be well within its right to investigate into such cases, the bench underscored.
Applying the said position of law to the instant matter the court said that initially the offences involved provisions under the PC Act along with those under the IPC and were rightfully investigated into by the CBI but after the filing of the charge sheet wherein offences under the provisions of the PC Act were dropped, the jurisdiction of the CBI would ceased as on the date of filing of the said charge sheet.
"At this juncture, if the CBI is to continue prosecution, the specific consent of the State is required", the court clarified.
Finding nothing on record to demonstrate as to if consent was given or not or whether the same was requested or not, the court observed that the charge sheet forwarded by the CBI in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was hence without jurisdiction, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings against the petitioner.
"In view of the above this petition is hereby allowed, the FIR dated 10.12.2015 filed by the Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Shillong and the related proceedings in CR Case No. (S) of 2017 before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong are hereby set aside and quashed, the bench concluded.
Case Title: Shri. T. Pathaw Vs. Inspector of Police, CBI & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 10