Srinagar, Feb 02: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Thursday ruled that the investigation of certain classes of offences including offence under J&K State Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the erstwhile State of J&K do not lack jurisdiction after bifurcation of State into twin Union Territories (UTs).
The court of Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that CBI has jurisdiction to investigate FIRs registered under Corruption Act in the erstwhile State of J&K.
“The erstwhile State of J&K has accorded general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act for exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI to investigate the offences mentioned in the consent letter dated May 07, 1958 read with letter dated December 18, 1963 and that these communications have not been withdrawn by a competent authority of the erstwhile State of J&K,” the bench said adding, “Thus, the CBI has jurisdiction to investigate the offences mentioned in the aforesaid two consent letters read with notification dated 01.04.1964 and order dated 01.04.1964.”
Justice Dhar said that so far as the offences punishable under J&K PC Act are concerned, all the offences are included in both the consent letters, therefore, all offences punishable under the said Act as amended from time to time would come within the purview of the consent letters.
Justice Dhar held that once a member of the CBI is vested with jurisdiction to investigate offences under J&K Prevention of Corruption Act in the State of J&K, he would exercise the same powers and privileges as are available to an officer of Vigilance Organization.
The court passed the rulings in a batch of petitions pending before Srinagar and Jammu wings of the HC challenging jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate the offences committed in erstwhile State of J&K.
The petitioners contended that CBI lacks jurisdiction to investigate the FIRs registered under J&K PC Act which have been challenged in these petitions because no consent in terms of Section 6 of the DSPE Act has been accorded by the erstwhile State of J&K to the investigation of the instant cases.
According to the petitioners, the CBI, before undertaking investigation of the said FIRs, was bound to obtain consent of the State Government in individual cases in terms of Section 6 of the DSPE Act and because the same has not been done, as such, the CBI lacks inherent jurisdiction to investigate the impugned FIRs and to file challan against the petitioners.
Taking note of the notifications, the court observed that the Central Government has issued notification under Section 3 specifying the offences to be investigated by the CBI, firstly on November 06, 1956 and then on April, 09,1958.
It underscored that after the issuance of these two notifications it appears that J&K government has accorded consent to the investigation of certain offences by CBI in terms of its communication dated May 07, 1958. These offences include some of the offences under RPC as also the offences under J&K State Prevention of Corruption Act.
It further noted that the Central Government felt a need for inclusion of certain more offences in the notification under Section 3 as also in order under Section 5 of DSPE Act and accordingly the State Government was approached vide communication dated July, 22, 1963 and consent of the State Government was sought regarding inclusion of these additional offences, so that fresh notifications/orders in terms of Section 3 and 5 can be issued.
The consent, the court observed, it seems, has been accorded by J&K government in terms of its letter dated December 18, 1963 where-after a fresh notification under Section 3 was issued on April, 01, 1964 and a fresh order in terms of Section 5 was also issued on the same date. In these notifications and orders offences already specified in the earlier notifications and orders, in addition to newly added offences, find a mention.
The bench underscored that in the face of the general consent accorded by J&K Government to the jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate certain offences in the erstwhile State of J&K no such specific consent is called for in the cases that are directly registered by the CBI as there is no question of any parallel investigation in such cases.
“Thus, no separate or specific consent with regard to each case to be investigated by the CBI is necessary and it is only in cases where the FIR has been registered by the local Police and the investigation is sought to be transferred by the CBI, a specific consent is required. This is what has been done by the State Government in most of the cases while issuing specific consent notification under Section 6 of the Act,” court recorded.
However, Justice Dhar directed the Registries of both the wings of the court to delink all these petitions and list the same separately before the roster bench for consideration on other legal grounds raised in the petitions on individual basis.
“Since the stay of proceedings before the Trial court was granted primarily on the ground of jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate the impugned FIRs, as such, having regard to the answer rendered by this Court to the said question of law, the stay of proceedings before the Trial court shall stand vacated,” the court said.
The court directed that matters be listed before the Registrar Judicial, Jammu and Registrar Judicial, Srinagar on February 20, 2023 for fixing of dates in individual cases.
