JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

C.B.I. v. Dr. R.R. Kishore

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

586

Message
show

C.B.I. v. Dr. R.R. Kishore

This case deals with the interpretation of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in view of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioners Arguments
n a Review Petition before the Delhi High Court, Dr. R.R. Kishore contended that, under the provisions of the Act, no inquiry or investigation into any offence could have been conducted against him without prior approval of the Central Government. According to him, laying the trap and subsequent events were all part of an investigation, which was vitiated due to non-compliance of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The petitioner referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Shailenderanath Base v. State of Bihar [AIR 1968 SC 1292] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali [AIR 1959 SC 709] . He submitted that when the FIR was registered at 2 PM, no further steps could have been taken without the approval required under Section 6A(1).
Responders Arguments
Before the Delhi High Court, the CBI contended that the Central Government’s approval was not necessary because the respondent was arrested on the spot on the charge of accepting (or attempting to accept) illegal gratification. Reliance was placed on sub-clause (2) of Section 6A which contains a non-obstante clause stating that no prior approval is necessary in cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on charges of accepting illegal gratification.
Last Listed On
2023-09-11
Start Date
2016-03-10
End Date
2023-09-11
Card Stage Date
2023-09-11
Review Petition No
Crl. A. No. 377/2007
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Criminal Law
Disposal Time
7 years, 6 months, 1 day

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

The present matter deals with the interpretation of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 . Under this provision, the Delhi Special Police Establishment cannot conduct any inquiry or investigation into an offence allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without the previous approval of the Central Government if the allegations relate to Central Government employees at the Joint Secretary level. The respondent in this case, Dr. R.R. Kishore was the Chief District Medical Officer, Government of NCT of Delhi, a Joint Secretary level rank officer. An FIR was filed against him for demanding a bribe, which was then handed over to the CBI for investigation. In pursuance of the FIR, a trap was laid by the CBI to catch the respondent accepting a bribe. On 05-10-2006, the Delhi High Court pronounced its judgment. The High Court held that the respondent was not arrested “on the spot”, and therefore, the requirement of prior approval was not diluted or dispensed with. The respondent was arrested after a case had already been registered and investigation was underway. It was observed that since the events leading up to the arrest of the petitioner were pre-planned and could not be construed as an arrest “on the spot” as contemplated under Section 6A(2). The investigation, including the trap, was consequently held to be illegal. However, the High Court also observed that, even though the investigation was illegal, it does not mean that the respondent is entitled to a discharge or that the case against him should be closed. The High Court directed that a reinvestigation be ordered after seeking the Central Government’s approval to investigate. The CBI filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s judgment on 03-01-2007. The Division Bench passed a substantive order on 10-03-2016 referring the matter to a Constitution Bench.

Whether there can be a deprivation of the immunity granted under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Court, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India?

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

Article 20, Constitution of India, 1950

The Division Bench observed that in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation [(2014) 8 SCC 682] , a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held Section 6A(1) of the Act to be unconstitutional. However, the said judgment was silent on whether it would be effective retrospectively, or only prospectively. The Division Bench, therefore, referred the matter to a Five Judge Constitution Bench to decide whether or not officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above can be retrospectively deprived of the immunity guaranteed to them under Section 6A(1) of the Act.

Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation [(2014) 8 SCC 682]

Law and Process of Investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation: Issues and Perspectives

Law and Process of Investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation: Issues and Perspectives
Source Of Info
SSRN
Date Of Fr
2014-09-07