Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Dr. RR Kishore Vs. CBI, 142 (2007) DLT 702
4. Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 5 SCC 1
5. Louis Peter Surin Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 12 SCC 497
6. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen (2010) 14 SCC 527
7. Mayawati Vs. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 106
8. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64. 2.2.1 The reliance was placed upon Dr. RR Kishore's case (supra) to bring home the ground that S.6A of DSPE Act is mandatory and not merely directory and any investigation carried out in violation of the same would be illegal. It has been submitted that as in the present case, the prior approval as required u/S.6A of DSPE Act had not been taken, and therefore, the investigation which culminated into the chargesheet was declared to be illegal and void ab initio.

Ld. Sr. counsel submitted that therefore, the present RC also being registered in absence of consent u/S.6 of DSPE Act and further investigation conducted by the CBI is illegal and void ab initio. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon Lalu Prasad Yadav's case (supra) and Subramanian Swamy's case (supra) to support his contention.

2.3 Ld. Sr. Advocate has also relied upon J. Muthukrishnan & Anr.'s case (supra) to buttress his point that consent u/S.6 of DSPE Act is quintessential, in which it was, inter­alia, held as under :

3.0 Sh. ID Vaid, Ld. Spl. PP for CBI and Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that there is no reason for this court to differ with the view taken by Hon'ble Allahabad High court and Hon'ble Delhi High court in earlier writ petitions. It was submitted that since A1 had retired before RC was registered, he ceases to be public servant and therefore, no permission of State of UP was required. No dispute was raised to the fact that S.6 of DSPE Act finds it root from entry No.80 of List 1 and entry No.2 of List 2 of Schedule VII. In respect of S.6A of DSPE Act, CBI submitted that "single directive" which is akin to S.6A of DSPE Act was introduced in 1969, was struck down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226. Subsequently, Govt. brought another ordinance dated 25.08.98 to review the single directive, but after few months the ordinance was withdrawn on 27.10.98 and therefore, except for a period of few months intervening above said two notifications, single directive lost its entity till 2003, when it was inserted by the act 45 of 2003 wef 01.09.03. The Constitutional validity of S.6A was again challenged befor Supreme Court on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI, 2005 Cri.L.J. 1413, the full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineet Narain's case (supra) and K. Veera Swamy Vs. UOI, (1991) 3 SCC 655, the matter deserves to be heard by a larger bench. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger bench.

CBI in support of its case has relied upon the following judgments :

1. Surinder Singh Ahluwalia Vs. Delhi Special Police Establishment and Ors., 1991 Cri.L.J. 2583
2. Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI, 2005 Cri.L.J. 1413 ;
3. PM Singh Vs. CBI, 2008 I AD (Delhi) 438 ;
4. Prof. Ramesh Chandra Vs. CBI, Crl. M.C. 3172/2008 & Crl. M.A. 11721/2008 (stay), decided on 25.03.2009 ;
5. Ashok Sadarangani & Anr. Vs. UOI, WP (Crl) No.26 of 2011 decided on 14.03.2012 ;