Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the order of the Rajasthan High Court dated July 6, 1993, which had affirmed the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur's order dated October 22, 1991 refusing permission to the CBI to investigate a non-cognizable offence under FERA. The case arose from CBI case No. RC 8(S)/91/SIU(IX)/CBI/New Delhi registered against Arvind Singh Mewar, an Indian national resident in India, who was alleged to have purchased three properties in the United Kingdom, incurred expenditure on repairs, his daughter's education, travel, and a Rolls Royce car, totaling approximately Rs. 228 lakhs (782,790 pounds), without permission from the Reserve Bank of India or the Government of India. The CBI's Deputy Superintendent of Police filed an application under Section 155(2) CrPC before the CJM seeking permission to investigate offences under Section 25(1) read with Section 56 FERA. The CJM dismissed the application on grounds that no notification empowered the CBI under Sections 4 and 5 FERA, that an FIR under Section 154(1) CrPC cannot be registered for a non-cognizable offence, and that permission of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC was required because the alleged offences occurred abroad. The High Court dismissed the CBI's petition under Section 482 CrPC, holding the CJM's reasoning justified. Before the Supreme Court, the Additional Solicitor General for the CBI advanced several arguments. He contended that Section 5 FERA empowers the Central Government to entrust the functions of the Directorate of Enforcement to police officers, and that the notification under Section 3 DSPE Act authorising DSPE officers to investigate FERA offences constitutes due authorisation under Section 5 FERA. He argued that Section 62 FERA makes FERA offences non-cognizable, and the only route for investigation is Section 155(2) CrPC. He relied on the State of Rajasthan's consent letter dated November 10, 1975 under Section 6 DSPE Act and Central Government notifications dated October 26, 1977 and September 7, 1989, which included FERA offences at Sl. No. 19. He cited Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762, for the proposition that a general consent authorising the entire DSPE force in a State is valid. He also submitted that Section 56(6) FERA excluded the first proviso to Section 188 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, indicating that the Code's application is modulated by FERA. The appellant further contended that the CBI had registered the FIR on September 17, 1991 before any action by the Directorate of Enforcement, and a copy was sent to the Director, so there was no parallel investigation or double jeopardy. The available text of the judgment ends during the appellant's submissions and does not include the Supreme Court's final analysis, holding, or operative directions. Therefore, the ultimate decision on whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed is not recorded in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation of Non-Cognizable Offences - Magistrate's Permission under Section 155(2) CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154(1), 155(2), 482 - The CBI sought permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate to investigate a non-cognizable FERA offence, but the Magistrate dismissed the application holding that an FIR under Section 154(1) CrPC cannot be registered for non-cognizable offences and that the CBI lacked authorisation under FERA. The High Court affirmed this order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court; the appellant contended that Section 155(2) is the only route for investigating non-cognizable offences and that permission should have been granted. B) Foreign Exchange Regulation - Non-Cognizable Nature of FERA Offences - Section 62 FERA - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, Sections 25(1), 25(2), 56, 62 - The offences punishable under Section 56 FERA are made non-cognizable by Section 62 FERA, meaning the police cannot investigate without Magistrate's order under Section 155(2) CrPC; the CJM relied on this to reject the FIR registered under Section 154(1) CrPC, while the appellant contended that the Code applies to FERA offences except where expressly excluded. C) Administrative Law - Police Powers - Authority of CBI under DSPE Act and General Notification - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Sections 3, 5, 6 - The appellant contended that the CBI/DSPE was authorised to investigate FERA offences by virtue of State of Rajasthan's consent under Section 6 DSPE Act dated 10-11-1975 and Central Government notifications under Sections 3 and 5 DSPE Act, including consolidated notification dated 07-09-1989; the appellant relied on Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762, holding that a general consent authorising the entire force is valid. D) Foreign Exchange Regulation - Entrustment of Enforcement Functions - Section 5 FERA and DSPE Act Coordination - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, Section 5; Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 3 - The appellant argued that Section 5 FERA empowers the Central Government to entrust functions of the Directorate of Enforcement to police officers, and the notification under Section 3 DSPE Act authorising DSPE officers to investigate FERA offences amounts to due authorisation under Section 5 FERA; the CJM and High Court had held no such notification was produced, which the appellant challenged. E) Criminal Procedure - Offences Committed Outside India - Requirement of Central Government Sanction under Section 188 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 188; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, Section 56(6) - The CJM refused permission partly because the alleged offences were committed in a foreign country and permission of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC had not been taken; the appellant countered that Section 56(6) FERA specifically excluded the first proviso to Section 188 of the old Code, indicating the Code's operation is subject to FERA's specific provisions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the CBI/DSPE had legal authority to investigate offences under FERA and whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in refusing permission under Section 155(2) CrPC; whether an FIR under Section 154(1) CrPC could be registered for non-cognizable FERA offences; whether Section 188 CrPC barred investigation without Central Government sanction for offences committed abroad.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment text provided is incomplete; final holding not included)
Law Points
- CBI's authority to investigate FERA offences under DSPE Act and FERA
- Section 155(2) CrPC permission for non-cognizable offences
- Section 62 FERA non-cognizable nature
- Section 5 FERA entrustment of enforcement functions
- Section 188 CrPC requirement for offences outside India
- general notification under DSPE Act valid as per Major E.G. Barsay
