Ramesh Chandra Singh And Another vs Central Bureau Investigation And Another

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

The State of West Bengal unfortunately has not been made a party in the instant revisional application. Let the State of West Bengal be added as party respondent and be served upon it through the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta.

Interesting question is raised in the instant revisional application. Central Bureau of Investigation has initiated a proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who are the petitioners before this Court and an FIR was registered on 19th November, 2018.

Immediately after commencement of the proceeding, the petitioners before this Court filed an application in the Court below asking for investigation to be stayed since the omnibus permission under Section 6 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946, has been revoked by the State of West Bengal. Such revocation has occurred on 16th November, 2018.

Counsel for the petitioners would argue that in the absence of permission under Section 6 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946, FIR lodged by the CBI is non est and void ab initio and cannot be proceeded with.

Counsel for the CBI would argue that since an application is pending to this effect in the Court below, the instant revisional application is premature in nature.

In reply thereto, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioners would argue that power under Section 482 can always be invoked even during the pendency of the application to this effect on the selfsame cause of action in the Court below. This Court is in agreement with Mr. Bhattacharya on this score. However, on the principal question as regards the jurisdiction of CBI to initiate a proceeding under the PCRA against the petitioner, for acts of omission committed while he was a Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (a central govt. employee) posted office within the State of West Bengal, the argument of Mr. Bhattacharya must be considered.

Admittedly, FIR was lodged on 19.11.2018 three days after the omnibus permission under Section 6 of the said 1946 Act issued by the State of West Bengal had been revoked. One would have normally come to a conclusion that the formal permission of the State of West Bengal would have been required for the CBI to investigate or initiate any proceeding in the State of West Bengal in this regard.

This Court notes that the object and purpose of Section 6 of the said Act is to ensure prevalence of the constitutional principle of federal structure.

This Court would have definitely entertained such argument in view of the statutory effect of withdrawal of the omnibus permission under Section 6 of the said Act, as aforesaid, if the proceeding was concerning an officer of the State of West Bengal and/or public servant under the State of West Bengal. This Court further sees no rationale behind the State having any say in the Central Government wanting to proceed against its own officials and/or officers, functioning under a Central Statute, in this case the EPF and MP Act irrespective of the fact that whether or not the investigation is required to be conducted in a State, where the permission under Section 6 of the said Act does not exist.

There are other categories of offences, which the CBI under the 1946 Act may want to initiate a proceeding. Such proceeding may be wholly and completely unconnected with anything at all to do with the State Government while some of those acts may have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal.

In such cases, hyper technical application of Section 6 may not be desirable since it is equally in the interest of the State of West Bengal to ensure that acts of corruption, financial or otherwise, Acts leading to serious, financial impropriety and/or crimes that have been committed by the Officials or persons wholly and completely under the control of the Central Government.

Interestingly, in the instant case, the State Government has not even been made a party for this Court to ascertain its stand formally.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the hands of the C.B.I. cannot be stayed in the subject investigation against the revisionist.

Let the investigation and all proceedings against the petitioners continue in accordance with law, however, the same shall abide by the final result of the instant revisional application.

The application being CRAN 2841 of 2019 is disposed of.

Let the State of West Bengal be added as a party respondent to the instant proceedings. The State shall be served through the Office of the Public Prosecutor.

The C.B.I. as well as the State of West Bengal shall file their respective affidavit-in-opposition within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, thereto be filed by the petitioners one week thereafter.

Let this matter appear in the list under the heading "Contested Application" five weeks hence.