Summary
The Court rejected the challenge to the CBI investigation based on absence of prior State consent in a coal-diversion prosecution. Uttar Pradesh’s general consent covered the private accused; the two State officials were identified during investigation, later received specific consent, and pleaded no prejudice or miscarriage of justice. The case was remitted to the High Court to decide three other quashing grounds which it had left unanswered.
Issues
- Whether absence of prior specific State consent required quashing the investigation and proceedings.
- Whether the High Court had to decide the remaining civil-nature, parity and conspiracy grounds.
Provisions considered
- Sections 5 and 6, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946Recognized the requirement of State consent for exercise of extended investigative powers, and applied the existing general consent and circumstances of later specific consent. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21)
- General consent under Section 6 and State-public-servant rider, Government of Uttar Pradesh notification dated 15 June 1989Held that the notification covered investigation against private individuals for the specified corruption-related and connected offences; distinguished the rider relating to State public servants. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relied on the principle that investigative irregularity does not by itself warrant setting aside cognizance or proceedings absent prejudice or failure of justice. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19)
Held
- Section 5 permits extension of DSPE powers, subject to State consent under Section 6, consistently with federalism. The 1989 Uttar Pradesh notification supplied general consent for the specified offences and connected transactions. Its State-public-servant restriction did not require separate specific consent for registration against the private accused. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The two State officials were not initially named but emerged during investigation. Prosecution sanction had been granted before the charge-sheet, and specific post-facto investigative consent was granted in September 2018. In the presence of the general consent and absence of any pleaded prejudice or miscarriage of justice, the prior-consent objection did not justify interference. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21)
- The High Court had not decided whether the dispute was predominantly civil, whether prosecution offended parity, or whether the conspiracy charge could stand without the identified coal-company officials. Those distinct questions required decision on their own merits; the Supreme Court expressed no opinion on those merits. (¶¶ 4, 22, 23)
Result
Appeals disposed of. Prior-consent objection rejected; matters remitted to the High Court Single Judge to decide the three remaining questions on merits, with parties’ contentions on those questions open. Pending applications disposed of.