CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH S.P., JAIPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. AIR 2001 SC 668

Supreme Court of India

Central Bureau of Investigation … vs. State Of Rajasthan and Another on 19 January, 2001

Bench: R. P .Sethi,   K.T.Thomas

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1163-66 of 1998

Appeal (crl.)    1162    of 1998

Appeal (crl.)    42        of 2001

PETITIONER: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH S.P., JAIPUR

Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/01/2001

INTRODUCTION: The case of central bureau of investigation through S.P., Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and another brings the issue or the question of whether a magistrate has the power to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into any offence. 

This question, apparently unsophisticated, has become compounded with contradictory judgments marked by different High Courts.  While the Rajasthan and Delhi High court answered the question in the favorable way, the High Courts of Gujarat and Karnataka have answered it in the unfavorable way.  

These appeals are concentrated at the illustration of the Central Bureau of Investigation   (CBI) in view to challenge the judgments of the High Courts of Rajasthan and Delhi by which the orders passed by certain magistrates were upheld.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

The shared feature in all the appeals is, when an objection was filed before a magistrate asserting serious offences, investigation to be conducted by the CBI was ordered by the magistrate and final report was essential to be filed on completion of the investigation.

The order of the magistrate before the Delhi high court was challenged by the CBI , asserting that the magistrate has no jurisdiction to order the CBI to conduct the investigation, at any rate without attaining consent of the State Government concerned as essential , under Sec. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (Delhi Act).

The CBI sought after sustenance for the said conflict from some of the earlier decisions rendered by single judges of the high court of Delhi. When the matter was sited before a Division Bench of the High court of Delhi, an opposing view was taken and the Bench apprehended that the magistrate has the power to do so.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, in reaching the said view, has mainly relied on the clarifications made by this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sampat Lal & ors. {1985 (1) SCC 317}[1]

Learned Judges highlighted the following observation contained in Sampat Lal: In our vigilant opinion, Section 6 of the Delhi Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position. In this view, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG of CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attack for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Act.*[2]

When the court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation, Learned Judges gave emphasis to the words.

The Division Bench of the High Court took it for granted that what this Court meant by the word court as used in the said observation in Sampat Lal should be understood as any court. The Division Bench declined to accept the view of the Karnataka High Court (in one of the decisions) that what the Supreme Court meant in Sampat Lal’s case is the High Court and not any court. The fact situation in Sampat Lal was centered on the direction issued by the High Court. That apart, it is not advisable to read more than what is contained in a judgment.*[3]

For deciding the current question, reference is made to the powers of the magistrate in assembling investigation.  Three provisions are stated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which a magistrate can order investigation to be directed. Sections 155, 156 and 202 of the Code.

 Section 156 of the Code of criminal procedure, is applicable for the present purpose as it deals with investigation into cognizable offence

 Section 155 states only with the investigation into non-cognizable offences while Section 202 enables a magistrate to have the assistance of an investigation conducted either by the police or by any other person, for the limited purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint.

The section reads: 156. Police officers power to investigate cognizable cases. – (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190    may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.*[4]

If the power of a magistrate to order investigation by the CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be traced in the above provision, it is not possible to trace such power in any other provision of the Code. What is contained in sub- section (3) of Section 156, is the power to order the investigation referred to in sub-section (1), because the words order such an investigation as above-mentioned in sub-section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-section. Thus the power is to order an officer in charge of a police station to conduct investigation.*[5]

ISSUES CONCERNED:

• The principle involved in the case would be applicable when the magistrate is advanced to direct the CBI for leading the investigation.
• A contention was made that when the State Government gives consent for the CBI to investigate any offence within the area of the State it would be permissible for the magistrate to direct the officer of the CBI to conduct investigations. What is envisaged in Sections 5 & 6 of the Delhi Act is not one of conferring power on a magistrate to order the CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of Section 156(3) of the Code.*[6]
• Provisions mentioned for the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 142(1) of the Constitution can be besought, though parsimoniously, for giving directions which are mentioned, to the CBI to investigate in definite cases.
• Whether the High Court can order the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf under Section 6 of the Delhi Act*.[7]

JUDGEMENT-

The existing conversation is restricted to the question whether a magistrate can direct the CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of his powers stated under Section 156(3) of the Code. It is unnecessary to foldaway further than the scope of that issue. Hence, reiterated that the magisterial power cannot be stretched under the said sub-section beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation.

The appeals are consequently allowed and the challenged orders of the magistrates along with the judgments of the High Court are hereby set aside. Any investigation to be directed on the FIR enumerated or to be registered by the police station, in respect of the complaints tangled in these appeals would not be prejudiced

In Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 1998, when special leave was granted the orders of the magistrate directing the CBI to conduct investigation were stayed. However, this Court permitted the complainant in the case, to move the magistrate again for appropriate order for investigation of the offences. Pursuant thereto a direction was given by the magistrate concerned to the officer in charge of Hari Nagar Police Station, New Delhi, and on the strength of the said direction FIR No.32/99 was registered. Considered the facts alleged in the said case and deemed it, that it requires to be investigated by a specialized agency, like the CBI. Hence the CBI was ordered to take up investigation in FIR No.32/99 of Hari Nagar Police Station. *[8]

Henceforth, the appeals are then disposed of.

In this case, the Supreme Court has held that what is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the power of a Magistrate to order an “officer in charge of a police station” to conduct an investigation referred to in sub-section (1) thereof, because the words “order such an investigation as abovementioned” in sub-section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-section*.[9]

The Supreme Court further said that the two expressions “police station” and “officer in charge of a police station” have been given separate definitions in the Code in Sections 2(o) and 2(s) respectively. Acknowledged by the Government, a place or post, as police station, must have a police officer in charge of it and if he, for any reason, is absent in the station house, the officer who is in the next junior rank present in the police station, shall execute the function as officer in charge of that police station.[10]

The crucial concern for conducting investigation into offences in cognizable cases bestows with such police officer.

The Supreme Court further held that Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer in charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such Magistrate has jurisdiction. It was held that the magisterial power cannot be stretched under Section 156(3) beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation.*[11]

The Supreme Court, thus, held that a Magistrate cannot direct CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.*[12]

CONCLUSION –

To conclude with, in this case, it is held that a magistrate in exercise of his powers cannot direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into any offence. If the power of a magistrate to direct investigation by the CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be traced as mentioned in the above provisions, it is not possible to smidgen such power in any other provision of the Code.

---

[1] Indian kanoon, Central Bureau Of Investigation … vs. State Of Rajasthan And Another on 19 January, 2001 , available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1787248/, last seen on 28/04/23.

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] Indian kanoon, Central Bureau Of Investigation … vs. State Of Rajasthan And Another on 19 January, 2001 , available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1787248/, last seen on 28/04/23

[5] ibid

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

[8] Indian kanoon, Central Bureau Of Investigation … vs. State Of Rajasthan And Another on 19 January, 2001 , available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1787248/,  last seen on 28/04/23

[9] Dr.Ashok Dhamija, Can a Magistrate direct CBI investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C? , available at https://tilakmarg.com/answers/can-a-magistrate-direct-cbi-investigation-under-section-1563-cr-p-c/,  last seen on 28/04/2023

[10] Dr.Ashok Dhamija, Can a Magistrate direct CBI investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C? , available at https://tilakmarg.com/answers/can-a-magistrate-direct-cbi-investigation-under-section-1563-cr-p-c/, last seen on 28/04/2023

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

written by NANDINI SAIKIA, UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE, GAUHATI UNIVERSITY. B.A.,LL.B(HONS)8th semester