Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 7: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in a landmark judgment holds that CBI has empower to investigate all offences under PC ACT in J&K.
While dismissing the petition of Major General (Retd.) V.K.Sharma and Kiran Sharma, Justice Sanjeev Kumar, observed that it is the plea of the counsel for the petitioners that in case of offence under State Ranbir Penal Code, a fresh consent was accorded by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in terms of letter dated 18.12.1963 for offences which were notified later by the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the DSPE Act on 01.04.1964 and, therefore, in respect of offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the 2006 Act also a similar fresh consent by the State Government was sine qua non for conferring jurisdiction and powers on the CBI to investigate the offence. There is no substance in the argument and the same deserves to be rejected. This is so because as is apparent from a reading of the general consent letter dated 07.05.1958, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir had consented to the DSPE/CBI exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of Jammu & Kashmir for investigation of the specified offences of the State Ranbir Penal Code and not all the offences under the State Ranbir Penal Code and, therefore, if any new offence in the State Ranbir Penal Code was to be added in notification under Section 3 of the DSPE Act, a fresh consent from the Government of Jammu & Kashmir was required. This, however, is not so in the case of offences punishable under the 2006 Act. The State Government's consent for investigation of offences punishable under the 2006 Act is already given vide communication dated 07.05.1958 and as has been explained herein above, once consent is given by the State Government for investigation by the offences punishable under the 2006 Act by the CBI in the territory of Jammu & Kashmir, such consent will hold good for any amendment carried in the 2006 Act and for the new offence(s), if any, created by such amendment(s). To reiterate, the scope of expression "as amended from time to time" cannot be restricted only to the amendments carried out upto 7th May, 1958. The expression has a wider scope and amplitude and, therefore, is required to be construed accordingly, Court ordered.
This significant order has been passed in a petition in which petitioners are the accused facing trial in a criminal case titled Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K.Sharma and another before the Court of Special Judge Anti-corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu ["the trial Court"] arising out of FIR No.RC0042014A0001 under Section 5(1)(e) of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 ["2006 Act"] read with Section 109-B RPC. They are aggrieved of and have challenged the presentation of criminal challan before the trial Court on the ground that Central Bureau of Investigation ["CBI"], a special police establishment constituted under Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ["DSPE Act"] has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the 2006 Act unless a prior consent of the State Government in terms of Section 6 is obtained by the CBI. Reliance is placed on Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act to support this contention. —JNF |
