Holding

The High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR; the earlier consent notification had not been revoked and the letter was not a valid notification, so CBI retained jurisdiction.

Summary

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 against an IAS officer. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR, alleging that the State of Rajasthan had withdrawn its consent for the CBI to operate in the state, based on a letter from a Special Officer. The Rajasthan High Court accepted this argument and set aside the FIR. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that no notification revoking the earlier consent had been issued, the letter did not satisfy the requirements of a notification under Article 166, and consent need not be granted individually to each officer. Consequently, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR and the appeal was allowed. The Court also reiterated the limited and exceptional nature of the inherent power under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings.

Issues considered

The validity of the alleged withdrawal of State consent for CBI's jurisdiction under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
Whether a letter from a Special Officer constitutes a valid notification under Article 166 of the Constitution
Whether State consent must be obtained for each individual officer of the DSPE
The scope and proper exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash an FIR

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946s. 3, s. 5, s. 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 1208, s. 167, s. 168, s. 177A
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Subjects

Delhi Special Police Establishment ActSection 482 CrPCInherent jurisdictionState consentNotificationCBI jurisdictionFIR quashmentSupreme Court

Judgment

A CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
v.
RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, !AS AND ANR.

AUGUST JO, 2006

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AL TAMAS KABIR,JJ.]

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-Section 5-Consent of
State for operation ofAct-~Held---Letter of Special Officer (Home), Secretary,
C Department is not sufficient to establish withdrawal of consent given by State
through of notification-JI was more so as authority to write such letter was
not established and notification granting consent had not been revoked--
Such letter does not meet requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution and
is not even conceptually a notification-Also, consent of State is not required
to be in respect of each of officer of force constituted under the Act.
D
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--Section 482-Scope of-Discussed

Appellant registered a FIR against respondent under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946 alleging commission of various offences.
Respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
E Procedure, l 973 for quashing the FIR on the ground that appellant had no
jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Act of 1947 as consent necessary
by the State for operation of the Act of l 946 given in the year l 956 (a) had
been withdrawn as evidenced from the letter of the Special Officer (Home),
Secretary, Department (b) had neither been subsequently extended nor. did it
F relate to any particular offer. The High Court allowed the petition. Hence the
present appeal.

Appellant contended that the (a) the High Court lost sight of fact that
the notification issued under Section 5 of the Act of l 946 had not been
rescinded or revoked at any point of time (b) an inter departmental
G communication was treated as a notification to hold that the State Government
had not extended the notification; the authority of the person who wrote that
letter has not been established; and same cannot be treated to be one covered
under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (c) no specific order is
required in respect of each officer (d) prayer of the respondent could not have
450
H
CENTRAL BUREAU OF JNVESTIGATION v. RA VI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, !AS 451

been adjudicated in a petition instituted under Section 482 of the Code of A
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD I. The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings
instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged. [461-C] B
2. There is no notification revoking the earlier notification. The
authority to write the letter, on which the respondent relied, has not been

.
--··
indicated. It has also not been established that the person was authorized to
take a decision. In any event, the same does not meet requirements of Article
166 of the Constitution. The letter is not even conceptually a notification. High C
Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that there was a notification
rescinding earlier notification. [416-B, CJ

3. Consent of the State for operation of the Act of1946 was not required
in respect of each of the officer of the force constituted therein. (460-F-H]
D
Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1996)
9 SCC 735 and Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR (1961) SC 1762,
relied on.

4. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this
nature is the exception and not the rule. (443-F, G) E
R.P. Kapur v. State ofPunjab, AIR (1960) SC 866 and State ofHaryana
v. Bhajan Lal, [1992] Supp 1 335, relied on.

Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, Raghubhir Saran
(Dr.) v. State ofBihar, AIR (1964) SC I, Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, F
(19901 Supp SCC 686, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, AIR (1996) SC 309,
Rupan Deal Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, [1995[ 6 SCC 194, State ofKera/a
v. 0. C. Kuttam, AIR (1999) SC 1044, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, [1996) 7
SCC 705, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (19971 2 SCC 397,
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCTof Delhi), AIR (1996) SC 2983, Rajesh G
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa and Anr., [2002) 3 SCC 89, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 36 of
2002.
H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2001 of the High Court Judicature
'at Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 93/2001.

A.K. Panda, S. Wasim Qadri, Mohit Kumar, D.S. Mabra and P.
Parmeswaran for the Appellant.

B V.K. Verma, Dr. Sushi! Balwada and Aruneshwar Gupta (N.P.) for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'CBI')
C questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Respondent No. I, a member of Indian
Administrative Service filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, i 973 (in short 'the Code') for quashing the FIR registered
by the appellant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
1208, 167, 168, 177A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'JPC') and
D Sections 13(2) and 13( I) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short
'PC Act'). The only ground on which the respondent no. I prayed for quashing
the FIR is that the CBI had no jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (in short the 'Act'). FIR was registered
by S1'ri Rajiv Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Jaipur at the Police Station,
E CBI on the information received through some sources as in regard to certain
advertisements involving criminal conspiracy resulting in the commission of
offences noted above.

Respondent no. I filed the petition before the High Court questioning
legality of the proceedings.
F
With reference to Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act, the respondent no. I
took the stand that the CBI had no jurisdiction to register the case. In
substance the stands were: (a) consent necessary by the concerned State for
operation of the Act had been withdrawn as is evident from the letter dated
26.6.1999 of the Special Officer (Home), Secretary, Department in response to
G the letter dated 21.11.1989 written by the Government oflndia, Department of
Personnel and Training, New Delhi. (b) consent of the State Government
which was given in 1956 was extended in I989 after the PC Act was promulgated
but subsequently the State Government had not considered it appropriate to
accord consent to extend some provisions of the Act to the whole of the State
H of Rajasthan, (c) though the consent had been given by the State of Rajasthan
-
CENTRAL BUREAU OFINVESTIGATION 1•. RA VISHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, !AS [PASAYAT,J.] 453

in 1956 and extended in 1989, same did not relate to any particular officer to A
act in terms of the Act and, therefore, the FIR as lodged had no validity in
the eye of law. The High Court accepted the stands. It held that the consent
was earlier given in 1956 and extended in 1989 after the Act was enacted. The
same became inoperative after the State Government refused to accord consent
for extending the same provisions of the Act to the whole of Rajasthan. It
was also held that for the authorized officers to function under the Act it was B
necessary that the officers were required to be individually notified and a
general notification would not suffice.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court has committed patent errors in law. First, prayer of the C
respondent no. I could not have been adjudicated in a petition instituted
under Section 482 of the Code. Secondly, the High Court has lost sight of the
fact that the notification issued under Section 5 of the Act had not been
rescinded or revoked at any point of time. Further an inter departmental
communication has been treated as a notification to hold that the State
Government had not extended the notification. The authority of the person D
who wrote that letter has not been established. In any event, the same cannot
be treated to be one covered under Article 166 of the Constitution of India,
1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). Thirdly, there was no specific order required
in respect of each officer as has been held in various decision of this Court.

In response, learned counsel for the respondent no. I submitted that E
when the proceeding itself was void ab initio the High Court was justified in
quashing the FIR. Further, there is no material on record to show that the
consent which was given in 1956 and extended in 1989 was intended to be
continued.
F
The rival contentions need careful consideration.

Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature
is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new
powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court
possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances G
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give
effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible
nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise
of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can
- provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper
discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the
doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and
preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or
criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo
B a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex
aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non
potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which
it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not
function a5 a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the
C section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down
in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority
of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to
D prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any
action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if
it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
E justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine
the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.

F In R.. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR (1960) SC 866 this Court
summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should
be exercised to quash the proceedings.

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
G
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint
taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal
H evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails
CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATION 1•. RAVI SHANKARSRIVASTAVA, IAS[PASAYAT,J.] 455

to prove the charge. A
In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence
which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where
there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the B
High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence
in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion C
and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the
same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to.
short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of
exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases D
where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable
offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp 1 335. A note of caution was, however, added that
the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. E
The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused. F
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. G
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
B can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
C proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with ma/a fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
D motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."

As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
of the Code are very wide &nd the very plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise
E of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent pl)wer should not
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the
highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and
F the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be
seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-
and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.
(See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, [1992] 4 SCC 305, and Raghubir Saran
(Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR ( 1964) SC I). It would not be proper for the High
G Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities
in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such
premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It
would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the
complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint,
H exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only
CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATION1•. RAVISHANKARSRIVASTAVA,IASjPASAYAT,J.] 457

in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, A
vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate,
it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there
should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether B
the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read
as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light
ofthe statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the
offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the
complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, iri that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is C
lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the ma/a fides
of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected
during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of
the accused person. The allegations of ma/a fides against the informant are
of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the
proceedings. (See: Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, [1990] Supp SCC D
686, State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, AIR (l 996) SC 309, Rupan Deal Bajaj v.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, [1995] 6 SCC 194, State of Kera/av. 0. C. Kuttan,
AIR(I999) SC 1044, State ofU.P. v. 0. P. Sharma, [1996]7 SCC 705, Rashmi
Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, [1997] 2 SCC 397, Satvinder Kaur v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR (1996) SC 2983, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of E
Delhi, [1999] 3 SCC 259 and in State of Karnataka v. M Devendrappa and
Anr., [20021 3 sec 89).

Coming to the question as to whetlu:r specific order in respect of each
of the officer, the position is no longer res integra. In Central Burea of
Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1996] 9 sec 735 it was held as F
follows:

"21. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it
appears to us that under Section 3 ofDSPE Act, the Central Government
may, by notification, specify the offences which are to be investigated G
by the members of DSPE. It is not disputed that notification under
Section 3 of DSPE Act has been issued by the Central Government
specifying the offences under FERA to be investigated by the members
of DSPE. It is also not in dispute that a notification dated October 26,
1977 by the Government oflndia, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of Personnel and Administrative Refonns, has been issued in exercise
of the powers conferred by Sub-section (I) of Section 5 read with
Section 6 of DSPE Act. By the said notification the Central Government,
with consent of the various State Governments as mentioned in the
said notification including the State Government of Rajasthan, has
extended the powers and jurisdiction of the members of DSPE, inter
B a/ia, to the State of Rajasthan for the investigation of the offences
specified in the Schedule to the said notification. In the schedule
under Clause (a), offences punishable under the FERA and under
Clause (b) attempts, abatements and conspiracies in relation to or in
connection with any offence mentioned in Clause (a) and any other
C offence committed in the course of the same transaction arising out
of the same facts have been mentioned.

22. It is, however, to be noted that under Section 2 of DSPE Act, the
Central Government has been empowered to constitute a special police
force to be called the DSPE for the investigation in any Union Territory
D of offences notified under Section 3. Under Section 5(1) of DSPE Act
the Central Government may by order extend to any area including
Railway areas in a State, not being Union Territory, the powers and
jurisdiction of the members of the DSPE for the investigation of any
of the offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under
Section 3, Unde~ Section 5(2), when by an order under Sub-section (I),
E the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the said police
establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may,
subject to any order which the Central Government may make in this
behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and
shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member
F of a police Force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions
and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer
belonging to that police force.
23. It is quite evident that members of DSPE are members of special
police force constituted under Section 2 of DSPE Act by the Central
G Government. The question that .arises for decision in this case is
whether or not a member of DSPE, which is also a member of special
police force constituted by the Central Government, even if authorised
under Section 3 and Section 5 of DSPE Act to investigate in respect
of offences under FERA in a particular state other than the Union
Territory, with the consent of such State Government, can investigate
H
CENTRALBUREAUOFJNVESTIGATJON 1•. RA VJSHANKARSRJVASTAVA, JAS(PASAYAT,J.] 459

the offences for violation of FERA, more so, when the offence is A
alleged to have been committed outside indian Territory. It will be
apposite at this stage to refer to the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and
5 of FERA:

"Section 3: Classes of Officers of Enforcement -

There shall be the following classes of officers of Enforcement, B
namely:

(a) Directors of Enforcement;

(b) Additional Directors of Enforcement;

(c) Deputy Directors of Enforcement; c
(d) Assistant Directors of Enforcement;

(e) Such other class of officers of Enforcement as may be
appointed for the purposes of this Act.

Section 4. Appointment and powers of officers of enforcement: D
(I) The Central Government may appoint such persons as it
thinks fit to be officers of enforcement.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1), the
Central Government may authorise a Director of Enforcement or E
an Additional Director of Enforcement or a Deputy Director of
Enforcement or an Assistant Director of Enforcement to appoint
officers of Enforcement below the rank of an Assistant Director
of Enforcement.

(3) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Central
Government may impose, an officer of Enforcement may exercise
F
the powers and discharged the duties conferred or imposed on
him under this Act.

Section 5 - Entrustment offunctions of Director or other officer
of Enforcement:
G
The Central Government may, by order and subject to such
conditions and limitations as it thinks fit to impose, authorise any
officer of customs or any Central Excise Officer ·or any police
officer or any other officer of the Central Government or a State
Government to exercise such of the powers and discharge such
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of the duties of the Director of Enforcement or any other officer
of Enforcement under this Act as may be specified in the order.

27. In our view, such notifications under Sections 3 and 5 ofDSPE Act
are necessary for the purpose of exercising powers by a member of
DSPE in respect of offence or offences and in respect of areas outside
B the Union Territory. It may however be noted here that by a general
notification, members of DSPE may be authorised to exercise power
of investigation in respect of offence or offences and in areas as
specified in the notification under Sections 3 and 5. As already
indicated, although officers of Enforcement Directorate are clothed
with the powers and duties to enforce implementation of the provisions
c of FERA, the Central Government has been authorised to impose on
other officers including a police officer, power and authority to
discharge such of the duties and functions as may be specified by it.
It is nobody's case that any notification has been issued under FERA
authorising the member of DSPE to discharge the duties and functions
D of an officer of Enforcement Directorate. In our view, in the absence
of such notification under FERA, a member of DSPE, despite the
aforesaid notifications under Sections 3 and 5 of DSPE Act, cannot
be held to be an officer under FERA and therefore is not competent
to investigate into the offences under FERA."

E Nearly four decades back the position was succinctly stated by this
Court in Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR (1961) SC 1762 at para
29 as follows:

"It was contended before the High Court and it was repeated before
us that the consent should have been given to every individual
F member of the Special Police Establishment and that a general consent
would not be good consent. We do not see any force in this argument.
Under s. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, no member
of the said Establishment can exercise powers and jurisdiction in any
area in a State without the consent of the Government of that State.
G That section does not lay down that every member of the said
Establishment should be specifically authorized to exercise jurisdiction
in that area, though the State Government can do so. When a State
Government can authorize a single officer to exercise the said
jurisdiction, we do not see any legal objection why it could not
authorize the entire force operating in that area belonging to that
H Establishment to make such investigation. The authorization filed in
CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATION1•. RA VISHANKARSRIVASTAVA,IAS [PASAYAT,J.) 46 J

this case sufficiently complies with the provisions of s. 6 of the Delhi A
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and there are no merits in this
contention."

Coming to the pivotal stand of respondent no. I, as has been rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, there is no notification revoking
the earlier notification. The letter on which great emphasis has been laid by B
the respondent no.1 and highlighted by the High Court, the authority to write
the letter has not been indicated. It has also not been established that the
person was authorized to take a decision. In any event, the same does not
meet requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution. The letter is not even
conceptually a notification. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding C
that there was a notification rescinding earlier notification.

The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings instituted
on the basis of the FIR lodged. The impugned judgment of the High Court
is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

v.s. Appeal allowed.