Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court's order upholding CBI investigation in a coal scam case. The case arose from an FIR registered on 13 April 2011 by CBI against M/s Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and its director, along with unknown government officials, for offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation revealed involvement of two public servants from District Industries Centre, Chandauli. The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification on 15 June 1989 granting consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for CBI to investigate PC Act offences, but with a rider that prior permission was required for investigating public servants under state control. The High Court had framed questions regarding the validity of investigation without prior consent. The Division Bench answered that the notification permitted investigation, and the matter was remanded. The State Government subsequently granted post-facto consent on 7 September 2018 for the two public servants. The Single Judge held that post-facto consent was valid and that private individuals could not challenge the lack of consent. The Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that consent under Section 6 is mandatory but can be granted post-facto, and only public servants named in the FIR can raise the issue of lack of consent. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - CBI Investigation - Section 6 Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Consent of State Government - Post-facto consent granted by State Government for investigation against public servants whose names surfaced during investigation is valid and cures any initial defect - Held that consent under Section 6 is mandatory but can be granted post-facto, and private individuals cannot challenge lack of consent (Paras 8-10). B) Criminal Law - CBI Investigation - Locus Standi - Private individuals charged with offences under IPC and PC Act cannot challenge the validity of CBI investigation on ground of lack of consent under Section 6 DSPE Act, as the consent requirement is only for public servants under state control - Held that only public servants named in FIR can raise such objection (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether investigation conducted by CBI without prior consent of State Government under Section 6 of DSPE Act is illegal and whether post-facto consent can cure the defect; whether private individuals can challenge the lack of consent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the High Court's order that post-facto consent granted by State Government under Section 6 of DSPE Act is valid and private individuals cannot challenge the lack of consent.
Law Points
- Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act
- 1946 requires prior consent of state government for CBI investigation in state
- but post-facto consent can cure defect
- private individuals cannot challenge lack of consent if they are not public servants
- consent requirement is only for public servants under state control
- not private individuals.
