Supreme Court of India

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 698
Decided: 8 July 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: G N RAY

Holding

A DSPE member may investigate offences under FERA in a state only if a specific notification under Sections 3 and 5 of the DSPE Act, with the consent of the state, extends its jurisdiction, and absent a separate FERA‑specific authorization, such a member is not competent to investigate FERA offences, especially those alleged to have been committed outside India.

Summary

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC to investigate alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) by Shri Arvind Singh Mewar, who was accused of purchasing property and incurring expenses abroad without RBI approval. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that no notification authorized the CBI under FERA, that the alleged offence was non‑cognizable and committed outside India, and that Central Government permission under Section 188 CrPC was required. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the dismissal. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) could investigate FERA offences in a state, especially when the offence is alleged to have occurred abroad, and whether notifications under the DSPE Act sufficed as authority. The Court held that DSPE members are a special police force whose jurisdiction outside Union Territories depends on a specific notification under Sections 3 and 5 of the DSPE Act, with state consent, and that without a separate FERA‑specific notification they are not officers under FERA and cannot investigate such offences, particularly those committed outside India. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the petition disposed.

Issues considered

The legality of a DSPE (CBI) officer investigating alleged FERA offences in a state without a specific FERA notification authorising such investigation.
Whether the offence alleged to have been committed outside India can be investigated by the CBI under the DSPE Act and Section 188 of the CrPC.
The applicability of Section 155(2) CrPC and the requirement of Central Government permission for investigating non‑cognizable offences under a special law like FERA.
The extent to which notifications under Sections 3 and 5 of the DSPE Act extend jurisdiction of DSPE members to investigate offences specified in FERA.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154(1), s. 155(2), s. 188, s. 4, s. 5
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946s. 1, s. 2, s. 3, s. 5, s. 6
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973s. 19A, s. 25, s. 3, s. 33(2), s. 34, s. 35, s. 36, s. 37, s. 38, s. 39, s. 4, s. 40, s. 41, s. 42, s. 43, s. 45, s. 5, s. 56, s. 61, s. 62

Subjects

FERADSPE ActCBInon‑cognizable offencespecial lawjurisdictioninvestigation outside IndiaSection 155 CrPCSection 188 CrPCspecial police forceenforcement directorate

Judgment

- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
v.
STATE OF RA.IASTHAN AND ORS.

JULY 8, 1996
A

B
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.T.]

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973-Ss. 3, 4, 5, 56-Deihi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946-Sections 3 & 5-lnvestigation of offences
under FERA-Section 4 Cr.P.C. not applicable-Commission of offences out-
side lndiir-Power.i and jurisdiction of member of Delhi Special Police Es-
c
tablislunent-Held, investigation 111ay be n1ade only with pennission of Central
Govenunent.

Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, made an application u/s.
155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Chief Judicial D
Magistrate, for grant of permission to him to investigate case u/S. 25(1)
r/w S. 56 of the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973 against respon-
dent 3, stating that the case was registered on the allegation that respon-
dent No. 3, an Indian National and a resi~ent in India, had purchased
three properties in United Kingdom, got education of his daughter in U.K.,
purchased Rolls Royace Car etc., incurring heavy expenditure without any E
permission from Reserve Bank of India or Government of India, thereby,
committing an offence u/S. 25(1) r/w S. 56 of FERA and that as per Sec.
62 of FERA, the offences punishable u/S. 56 FERA being non-cognizable
within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to investigate
the non- cognizable offence, permission was required. The Chief Judicial F
Magistrate dismissed the application holding that u/S. 5 of t"ERA, the
State Government may by order and subject to such conditions and
limitations as it thinks fit to impose, authorise any officer of Custon1s or
any Central Excise officer or any Police Officer or any Otlicer or the
Central Government or a State Government to exercise such of the powers
and discharge such of the duties of the Director Enforcement or any of the G
Ollicer of the Directorate of Enforcement or any other Ollicer ol' the
Enforcement under FERA as may be specified in the order, but no notifica-
tion could be produced which had empowered CBI u/Ss. 4 & 5 of FERA to
cause Investigation in respect of the offences under FERA; that the FIR
bad been registered by the CBI U/S. 154(1) Cr.P.C. while the offence alleged H
127
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A against respondent was non-cognizable offence u/S. 62 of' FERA and FIR
u/S. 154(1) Cr.P.C. could be registered for cognizable offences and not
non-cognizable offences and that in the FIR it was alleged that the viola·
tion of the provisions of FERA had been committed in a foreign country
for the inYestigation of \\'hich it \\'as necessary to take permission of the
B Government of India u/S. 188 Cr.P.C. but permission f'rom Central
<;overnn1ent having not been taken, the application filed for per1nission
was liable to be dismissed. The appellant made an application u/S. 482
Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by observing that the reasonings given by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate being justified, there was no occa!oiion to inter-
fere with the same. This appeal had been filed against the order of the High
C Court. The appellant submitted that Section 5 of FERA empowers the
Central Government to entrus1t the functions of Director or other officer
of Enforcement or any Police Oflicer or any other Oflicer of the Central
Govern1nent or of a State to exercise such pO\\'ers and discharge such of
duties; that any Oflicer who llrns been entrusted with the duties and
D functions of the Directorate of Enforcement would be bound by the law
which empowered them to be deemed as 'Officers of Enforcement'; that
there cannot be any authority other than authority mentioned u/S. 155
Cr.P.C. to deal with the cases under FERA being non-cognizable offence;
that the offences under FERA were notified for investigation by CBI in
E exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Government vide Ss. 3 and
5 r/w S. 6 of the Delhi Special Establishment Act, 1946 vide Order No.
228/2174-AVD/II dated 26.10.1977; that Section 5 of FERA confers authority
on Central Government to entrust the duties and functions of Director of
Enforcement or his subordinate to a Police Oflicer, hence the notification
issued u/s. 3 of DSPE Act authorising the Oflicers of DSPE to investigate
F
into the offences under FERA must be held to be a due authorisation u/S.
5 of FERA; that the CBI, Special Police Establishment, is a Specialised
Investigating Agency constituted under theDSPE Act for the investigation
of Special class of Crin1es having interstate and international ramifica-
tions irrespective of the fact the the offences therein are covered by a
G Special legislation and that entrustment of an offence of a special nature
to any of the reputed agencies for investigation is purely a State subject
and the same is \\ithin the inherent powers of a State Government and,
therefore, the consent given by the Government of Rajasthan was within
the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the State Govt.; that Section S of
H FERA confers authority on Central Government to entrnst the duties and
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE 129

functions of Director of Enforcement or his subordinates to a Police A
Officer, hence, the notification u/S. 3 of DSPE Act authorising the officers
of DSPE to investigate into the offences under FERA must be held to be a
due authorisation u/S. S of FERA; that the CBI having legal authority took
up the case for investigation and made the application u/S. 155(2) Cr.P.C. ,
for permission to investigate a non-cognizable ofl'ence but due to refusal
B
of permission by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, no enquiry could be held
by the CBI; that the primary requirement of law of the country should not
be jeopardised by refusing to accord permission on untenable grounds;
that CBI h&d initiated the case for registration of FIR much before any
action taken by the•Director of Enforcement and such investigation of the
CBI did not amount to parallel investigation as the Directorate of Enfor- C
cement was free to investigate the lapses under FERA other than the
offences u/S. 25(1) r/w s.56 of FERA and there was no question of double
jeopardy unless the accused had been persecuted for the same offence by
two authorities; that it is not necessary to give specific authority to otlicers
of the CBI individually to cause investigation relating to the offences under D
FERA and, therefore, a general notification authorising the Ollicers of
DSPE to investigate the offences under FERA must be held to be proper
authorisation to all the members of the CBI to cause investigation; that
the scheme of DSPE Act does not either expressly or by necessary implica-
tion divest the police authorities of their jurisdiction and powers under
any other competent law as DSPE Act is only permissive and empowers E
the members of DSPE also to investigate all the offences specified u/S. 3
of DSPE Act and that by authorising the members of the CBI to cause
investigation relating to the offences under FERA, the power conferred on
the Otlicers of the Enforcement under FERA had not been taken away and
as the jurisdiction of such officers of the CBI to cause investigation has F
been extended in the State of Rajasthan, there cannot be any impediment
of the Officer of the CBI to cause investigation relating to the offences
alleged to have been committed by respondent 3 and, therefore, the per-
mission sought for by the CBI to make investigation should have been
granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
G
The respondent contended that when under FERA, a special law,
specific provisions have been made for the investigation, enquiry and
recording of statement of witnesses and also of trial of offences, the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not govern the inves~
ligation etC. in respect of ofl'ences under "FERA and when the authorities H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A under FERA were already inv,,stigating the matter, the CBI could not be
allowed to have a parallel proceeding and there is only a limited role of
police under FERA; that any offence committed outside the country does
not fall within the purview of the provisions of DSPE Act, th~ permission
of the Central Government is necessary for investigation for an offence
punishable outside the country, therefore, in any event, investigation in
B
respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by.the respondent
3 outside India in violation of FERA cannot be done by any member of
CBI, therefore any such Notifiication is exfacie illegal and that the Chief
Judicial Magistrate rightly rej•ected the permission.

c The question raised for consideration was whether or not members
of DSPE are members of speciial police force constituted under Section 2
of DSPE Act 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
D consent of such State Government, can investigate the offences of violation
of U'ERA, more so, when the offence is alleged to have been committed
outside Indian Territory.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

E HELD : 1.1. Primarily the officer of Enforcement Directorate as
mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act have
been empowered to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred
or imposed on such officers of the Enforcement Directorate under FERA.
As it may be expedient in some cases lo confer powers and duties under
F FERA to persons outside the Enforcement Directorate, the Legislature in
its wisdom had given authority to the Central Government under Section 5
of FERA. The member of Delhi Special Police Establishment is a member of
police force constituted under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act by the
Central Government. Under DSPE Act, a member ofDSPE can exercise the
power of investigatioiI in the offence or offences as specified in Sections 3 of
G DSPE Act within Union Territory. For exercising power of investigation
outside Union Territory, even in respect of offences specified under Section
3 of DSPE Act, a notification extending jurisdiction in the State or States
outside Union Territory is rel][uired to be issued by the Central Govern-
ment with the consent of such State Government or Governm~nts. Unless
H such notification under Section 5 of DSPE Act is issued a_ member of DSPE
CEN1RALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATIONv.STATE 131

cannot investigate and exercise jurisdiction under DSPE Act in respect of A
offence or offences specified in Section 3 in a State outside the Union
Territory. Notifications under Sections 3 and 5 have been issued by the
Central Government authorising members of DSPE to investigate various
offences including offences under FERA in a number of States outside
Union Territory including the State of Rajasthan. Such notification under
B
Sections 3 and 5 of DSPE 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 the Union Territory. 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. [145-GH-H, 146-B-E) C

1.2. Although officers of the Enforcement Directorate are clothed with
the po\\'·ers and duties to enforce implementation of the provisions of FERA,
the Central Government has been authorised to i'mpose on other oflicers
including a police officer, power and authority to discharge such of duties
D
and functions as may be specified by it. 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.
FERA is a special legislation relating to regulation of foreign exchange.
FERA is also a central legislation enacted at a later point of time than the E
DSpE Act which was enacted in 1946. Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure will not come in aid of the investigation of the offences
under FERA by a member of police force like an officer of DSPE in
accordance of the Criminal Procedure Code. [146-G-H, 147-A-l)J
F
1.3. FERA is a self contained code containing comprehensive
provisions of investigation, inquiry and trial for the offences under that
Act. The Provisions under FERA give power to the officers of the Direc-
torate of Enforcement or other officers duly authorised by the Central
Government under FERA to Search, conspirate, recover, arrest, record
statements of witnesses, etc. FERA contains provisions for trial of the G
offences under FERA and imposition of punishment for such offences.
FERA, being a special law, containing provisions for investigation, en-
quiry, search, seizure, trial and imposition of punishment for offences
under FERA, Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable
in respect of offences under FERA. The allegation in the FIR in question, H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A indicate commission of offences under FERA outside India. (147-D-E]
1.4. Under Sections 1 and 2 of DSPE Act, the authority under the
said Act is to investigate the offences committed in the Union Territory or
in such other States where th" jurisdiction of the member of DSPE has
been extended under Section 5 of the Act. The member of DSPE, therefore,
B is not clothed with the authority to investigate offences committed outside
India. Even under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure, investiga·
tion of an offence committed rmtside Indian territory may be made only
with permission of the Central Government. If permission is granted,
offences committed outside lndlia can also be investigated. [148-D-E]
c Major E.G. Ba1wy v. State of Bombay, AIR (1961) SC ·1762; A.C.
Shanna v. Delhi Administration,. AIR (1973) SC 913 and L.E. Mohammad
Hussain v. Dy. Supe1intendent of Customs, AIR (1970) Mad, 464, referred
. to.

D Niiratan Sircar v. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas, AIR (1965) SC 1,
relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
700 of 1996.

E From the Judgment and order dated 6.7.93 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B. Cr!. Misc. P. No. 81 of 1992.

With

Writ Petition (C) No. 33 of 1996.
F
(Under Artic1e 32 of the Constitution of India.)

A.N. Jayaram Additional Solicitor General, C.V.S. Rao and Y.P.
Mahajan for the Appellant.

G A.K. Sen, S.M. Jain and S.K. Jain for the Respondents.

KS. Bhati for the State.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H G.N. RAY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE [G.N. RAY, J.] 133

This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of A
Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) dated .July 6, 1993 in SB Crl. Misc. Petition No.
81 of 1992 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedc1re, affirming
the order dated October 22, 1991 passed by the learned Chief judicial
Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, arising out of CBI case No. RC
8(S)/9l/S!U (IX), New Delhi.
B
Shri Om Prakash, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIU (IX),
New Delhi, made an application under Section 155(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, before the Chief .T udicial Magistrate (Economic Of-
fences), Jaipur for grant of permission to the said Deputy Superintendent
of Police, CBI, to investigate case No. RC 8/91/S!U(!X)/CBI/New Delhi C
under Section 25(1) read with Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange (Regula-
tion) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) against respondent No.
3 Shri Arvind Singh Mewar of Udaipur, Rajasthan. It was inter alia stated
in the said application under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure that the aforesaid case was registered against Shri Arvind Singh D
Mewar on the allegation that Shri Mewar, an Indian National and a resident
in India, had purchased three properties in United kingdom and got them
repaired and renova\ed involving total expenditure of Rs. 288 lakhs.
(782790 pounds) approximately. The said Arvind Singh had also incurred
heavy e>"]Jenditure on the education of his daughter in U.K., journey
expenditure to and fro United Kingdom and on the purchase of Rolls E
Royace Car etc. All such expenditure was incurred by Shri Mewar without
any permission from Reserve Bank of India or Government of India.
Accordingly, the said Shri Mewar had committed an offence under Section
25(1) read with Section 56 of FERA. It was further stated in the said
application that as per Section 62 of FERA, the offences punishable under F
section 56 of FERA were non-cognizable within the meaning of Code of
Criminal procedure and it was submitted that in order to investigate the
non-cognizable offence, the ttforesaid application for permission \Vas filed.

By the order dated October 22, 1991, the Chief Judicial magistrate
(Economic Offences) Jaipur, dismissed the said application, inter alia, on G
the finding that under Section 5 of FERA, the State 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 officer of the Central Government or a State
Government to exercise such of the powers and discharge such of the H

'
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A duties of the Director Enforcement or any of the Officer of the Directorate
uf Enforcement or any other officer of the Enforcement under FERA as
may be specified in the order; but no notification could be produced before
the said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which had empowered CBI
under Sections 4 and 5 of FERA to cause investigation in respect of the
offences under FERA. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also noted
B
that the FIR had been registered by the CBI under Scctionl54(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate indi-
cated that the offence alleged against respondent No. 3 was non-cognizable
offence under Section 62 of FERA and FIR under Section 154(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure could be registered for cognizable offences
C and not for non-cognizable offences. The learned Judicial Magistrate fur-
ther observed that in the FIR it was alleged that the violation of the
provisions of FERA had been committed io a foreign country. For inves-
tigation of offences committed in foreign countries, it \Vas necessary to take
permission of the Government of India under Section 188 of the Code of
D Criminal Procedure, but permission from Central Government had not
been taken. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the
permission to investigate the offences alleged against Shri Arvind Singh
Mewar by 'the CBI could not be given and the said application was
dismissed.

E Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the
appellant made an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure being SB Crl. Misc. Petition No. 81 of 1991. The learned Single
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) by Order dated July 6,
1993 dismissed the said SB Cr!. Misc. Petition No. 81 of 1992 by observing
F that the reasonings given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the
impugned order being justified, there was no occasion to interfere with the
same.

Mr. Jayaram, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
appellant, has submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrale and the
G High Court failed to appreciate that Section 5 of FERA clearly empowers
the Central Government to entrust the functions of Director or other
officer of Enforcement or any Police officer or any other Officer of the
Central Government or of a State to exercise such powers and discharge
such of the duties. Mr. Jayaram has further submitted that any officer who
H has been entrusted with the duties and functions of the Directorate of .
CENlRALBUREAU OFINVESTIGATIONv. STATE[G.N.RAY,J.] 135

Enforcement would be bound by the law which empowered them to be A
deemed as "Officers of Enforcement". Mr. Jayaram has also submitted that
the contention that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
cannot apply to the offences under FERA, is without any basis. By Section
62 of FERA, the offences punishable under Section 56 of FERA have been
made non-cognizable within the meaning of that Code. He has submitted
B
that there cannot be any authority other than authority mentioned under
Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with the cases under
FERA being non-cognizable offence. Mr. J ayaram has also submitted that
wherever the operation of the Code has been kept in abeyance that has
been specifically set out in FERA. By way of illustration he has referred
to Section 56(6) of FERA wherein. it has been specifically stated that C
"nothing in the first proviso to Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 (5 of 1898) shall apply to any offence punishable under this Section."

Mr. Jayaram has further submitted that the offences under FERA D
were. notified for investigation by CBI in exercise of the powers conferred
un the central Governn1ent vide Sections 3 and 5 read \Vith Scction 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to
as DSPE Act). The Government of Rajasthan vide letter No. G. 10(1)
Home/XIV/74 dated November 10, 1975 addressed to the Government of
India had conveyed its consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act for the E
purpose of the members of the DSPE exercising powers and jurisdiction
in the whole of the State of Rajasthan for investigation of offences punish-
. able under FERA and attempts, abatements and conspiracies in relation
to or in connection with the said offences. Mr. J ayaram has further sub-
mitted that the CBI, Special Police Establishment, is a specialised Inves-
tigating Agency constituted under the DSPE Act for the investigation of F
special class of crimes having interstate and international ramifications
irrespective of the fact that the offences therein are covered by a special
legislation. It has been contended by Mr. J ayaram that entrustment of an
offence of a special nature to any for the reputed agencies for investigation
is purely a "State subject" and the same is within the inherent powers of a G
State Government. Therefore, the consent given by the Government of
Rajasthan is within the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the State
Government and such exercise of power and jurisdiction are out of the
scope of judicial interference.

Mr. J ayaram has contended that the State Government has the prime H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A responsibility over the crime, iaw and order situation within its territory. It
has also been contended by Mr. J ayaram that in view of the consent given
by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel and Ad-
ministrative Reforms of the Central Government vide Order No. 228/2/74-
A VD/II dated October 26, 1977, in exercise of the powers conferred under
B Section 5 of the DSPE Act, notified the offences under FERA for inves-
tigation by DSPE in various States including the State of Rajasthan. Mr.
.Jayaram has submitted that a consolidated Notification bearing No.
228/8/89-AVD/II dated September 7, 1989 was issued under Section 3 of
the DSPE Act in respect of the offences for which consent by all the State
Governments has been given for the purpose of investigation by the CBI
C and the offences under FERA arc at SI. No. 19 of the list of Central Acts
notified for investigation by the members of DSPE. Mr. Jayaram has also
submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High Court
failed to appreciate the implication of the special legislation which deals
with all types of offences either to be departmentally dealt with in adjudica-
D tion proceedings as well conviction by a court of law if so warranted. Mr.
Jayaram has submitted that Section 5 of FERA undoubtedly confers
authority on Central Government to entrust the duties and functions of
Director of Enforcement or his subordinates to a Police Officer. Hence,
the notification issued under Section 3 of DSPE Act authorising the
officers of DSPE to investigate into the offences under FERA must be held
E to be a due authorisation under Section 5 of FERA.

Mr. .Jayaram has contended that the CBI having legal authority took
up the case for investigation and made the application under Section 155(2)
Cr.P .C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for permission to investigate
a non-cognizable offence. Due to refusal of permission by the Chief Judi-
F
cial Magistrate, no enquiry could be held by the CBI. It has been submitted
by Mr. J ayaram that the primary requirement of law of the country should
not b~ jeopardised by refusing to accord permission on untenable grounds.
Mr. Jayaran1 has submitted that it was preen1inently a fit case \Vhere
pe1mission should have been granted to the CBI to cause investigation in
G respect of the allegations of serious breach under FERA.
•
Mr. Jayaram has also submitted that the CBI has initiated the case
by registration of FIR No. RC 8(S)/91-SIU.IX/CBI/New Delhi on Septem-
ber 17, 1991 which is much before any action taken by the Director of
H Enforcement. A copy of the FlR has also been sent to the Director of
CENTRAL BUREAU OFINVES"IlGATIONv. STATE [G.N.RAY,J.] 137

Enforcement. The Directorate of Enforcement is free to investigate the A
lapses u~dcr FERA other than the offences under Section 25(1) read with
Section 56 of FERA. Such investigation of the CBI does not amount to
parallel investigation. In any event, there is no question of double Jeopardy
unless the accused has been prosecuted for the same offence by two
authorities. Mr . .Tayara1n has submitted that it is not necessary to give
B
specific authority lo officers of the CBI individually to cause investigation
relating to the offences under FERA. A general notification authorising
the officers of the DSPE to investigate the offences under FERA must be
held to be proper authorisation lo all the members of the CBI to cause
investigation. In support of thi.s contention, Mr. Jayaram has referred to a
decision of this Court in Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR (1961) c
SC 1762. Our attention has been drawn to the observation of this Court al
page 1778 which is to the following effect :

"It was contended before the High Court and it was repeated
before us that consent should have been taken to every individual D
member of the Special Police Establishment and that a general
consent would not be a goo<l consent. We do not see any force in
this argument. Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Estab-
lishment 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. That Section does not lay down E
that every member of the said Establishment should be specifically
authorised to exercise jurisdiction in that area, though the State
Government can do so. When a State Government can authorise
a single officer to exercise the said jurisdiction, we do not see any
legal objection why it could not authorise the entire force operating F
in that area belonging to that Establishment to make such inves-
tigation. The authorisation filed in this case sufficiently complies
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Estab-
lishment Act, 1946, and there are no merits in this contention."

G
Mr. Jayaram has also submitted that Section 3 of the DSPE Act
empowers the Central Government to specify the offences to be inves-
tigated by the members of DSPE. The offences under FERA have been
mentioned in the notification empowering the members of the DSPE. The
superintendence of DSPE vests in the Central Government and Section 5
of DSPE Act empowers the Central Government to extend to any area in H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A a State, not in a Union Territory, the powers and the jurisdiction of the
members of the Establishment for investigation of any offences or classes
of offences specified under Section 3. Subject to the orders of the Central
Government, the members of such establishment exercising such extended
powers and jurisdiction arc to be deemed to be the members of the Police
Force of that area for the purpose of powers, functions, privileges and
B liabilities; but the powers and jurisdiction of a member of DSPE in such
State is to be exercised only with the consent of the Government of the
State Concerned. Mr. Jayaram has submitted that the scheme of DSPE Act
does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the police
authorities of their jurisdiction and powers under any other competent law.
C Mr. Jayaram has also submitted that DSPE Act is only permissive and
empowers the members of DSPE also to investigate all the offences
specified under Section 3 of DSPE Act. In support of this contention, Mr.
Jayaram has relied on the observation at paragraph 12 in the decision of
this Court inA.C. Shanna v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1973) SC 913. Mr.
J aya ram has submitted that by authorising the members of the CBI to cause
D investigations relating to the offences under FERA, the power conferred
on the Officers of the Enforcement under FERA has not been taken away.

Mr. Jayaram has also contended that as the offence under FERA
can be investigated by the members of the CBI in view of the specific
notification issued by the Central Government under DSPE Act and as the
E jurisdiction of such Officers of CBI to cause investigation has been ex-
tended in the Slate of Rajasthan with due consent of Government of
Rajasthan, there cannot be any impediment of the Officer of the CBI to
cause investigation relating to the offences alleged to have been committed
by Shri Arvind Singh Mewar. In the aforesaid circumstances, the permis-
F sion sought for by the Dy. Superintendent of Police of the CBI before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, should have been granted and
the High Court erred in not setting aside the order of rejection of such
permission sought by the CBI.

G Mr. J ayaram has submitted that despite very serious allegations of
violations of FERA by Shri Arvind Singh Mewar, investigation cannot be
taken up for want of permission by the learned Judicial Magistrate. He has,
therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, the impugned order of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in refusing the permission sought for
by the CBI to make investigation relating to the allegations contained in
H the FIR, since upheld by the High Court, should be set aside and the
CENTRAL BUREAU OFJNVES"11GA110N v. STA1li [G.N. RAY,J.] 139

pern1ission should be given to the CBI to cause investigation in respect of A
the offences alleged in the FIR.

Mr. Ashok Sen, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 3 namely, Shri Arvind Singh Mewar, has contended that it will be quite
apparent from the combined reading of Sections 4, 5 and 26 of the Code B
of Crin1inal Procedure that if there is a special la\v prescribing the special
procedure for investigation of the cases falling under that Law, the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable. It is only
in the absence of any provisions regulating investigation, inquiry and trial
of non-IPC offence i.e. offence under any other law. investigation, inquiry
of trial, shall be as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under FERA c
specific provisions have been n1ade for the investigation, inquiry and
recording of statement of witnesses and also of trial of offences under
FERA. Therefore, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do
not govern the investigation etc. in respect of the offences under FERA.
Mr. Sen has submitted that Section 33(2) of the FERA empowers the D
Central Government or the Reserve Bank or any other Officer of Enfor-
cement Directorate not helow the rank of Chief Enforcement Officer to
call for information book or other document in possession of any person.
Section 34 of FERA empowers any officer of the Enforcement Directorate
so authorised by Central Government to search a suspected person and to
seize document. Section 35 authorises an officer of Enforcement to arrest E
a person against \Vhom the officer has reason to believe that any person in
India or within the Indian customs waters has been guilty of an offence
punishable under FERA. Section 36 authorises the officer of Enforcement
to stop and search the conveyances. Section 37 confers powers to search
premises. Section 38 authorises the officers of Enforcement to seize docu- F
ments. Section 39 authorises the Director of Enforcement or any other
officer of Enforcement authorised by the Central Government to examine
persons. Section 40 authorises the Gazetted Officer of Enforcement to
sun1mon persons to give evidence and produce documents. Section 41
authorises an officer of Enforcement to take into custody of the document. G
Section 42 authorises such officer to investigate the drafts, cheques and
oth_er instruments. Section 43 authorises the officer of Enforcement to
inspect books of accounts and other documents. Other provisions of the
Act provide various course of actions for implementation of the Act. The
said contravention of Section 25 is punishable under Section 56. Section 62
of the Act makes the offence under FERA as non-cognizable. Mr. Sen has H
'·
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A submitted that the aforesaid scheme of FERA clearly shows that FERA
is a special Act and is a self contained code which is fully comprehensive
specifying the various offences, prescribing the procedure for investigation
of trial of such offences and the punishment to be awarded for such
offences. These provisions constitute special la\v and according to Mr. Sen,
in vie\v of Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of
B the Code are not applicable in respect of such matters governed by the
special law i.e. FERA.

Mr. Sen has further submitted that the effect of Section 5 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure is lo render the provision of the Code inapplicable
C in respect of matters covered by special law. This Section clearly excludes
the applicability of Code in respect of investigation etc. under any special
or local law. Therefore, only those officers who have been empowered to
investigate under the special law i.e. FERA can do so and that too in
accordance with the special law. Mr. Sen has submitted that the police.
D therefore, goes out of picture. Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure also cannot be invoked as on account of specific proviSions in the
special law, general provisions contained in the Code do not apply.

Mr. Sen has also submitted that the provisions of FERA, read
particularly with Sections 61 and 62 clearly show that no other authority
E except the officers duly authorised under Section 5 thereof can investigate
any contravention under Section 25 punishable under Section 56 of FERA.
Mr. Sen has also submitted that in 1991, the authorities under FERA
interrogated respondent No. 3 on the basis of the very same allegations
which had been made by the CBI. Mr. Sen has submitted that the aforesaid
F fact clearly shows that for the same allegation with regard to the contraven-
tion of FERA, the authorities under FERA are already investigating the
matter and the CBI cannot be allowed to have a parallel proceeding. In
support of this contention, Mr. Sen has referred to the decision of this
/ Court in Ni/ratan Sircar v. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas, AIR (1965) SC
1. It has been observed in the said decision :
G
"Section 5 Criminal Procedure Code provides that all offences
under any law other than the India Penal Code shall be inves-
tigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to
the provisions contained in the Code or Criminal Procedure but
H subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the
CENDW,BUREAU OFINVESTIGATIONv. STATE[G.N.RAY,J.] 141

manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise A
dealing with such offences. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
is a Special Act and it provides under Section 19A for the necessary
investigation into the alleged suspected commission of an offence
under the Act, by the Director of Enforcement. The provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore will not apply ot such
B
investigation by hirn 11 •

Mr. Sen has also referred to the decision of Madras High Court in
L.E. Mohammad Hussain v. Dy. Supelintendent of Customs, AIR (1970)
Madras 464. It has been observed in lhe said decision :
c
"When there is a prohibition against taking cognizance by the
Magistrate without a complaint by a concerned authority and when
procedure is laid down under the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act which is a special Act, the power of the police to investigate
can only be confined to that conferred to them under Section 19-J D
(2) of the Act. So far as offence in the special enactments are made
cognizable, the police, under the general power, may investigate.
In the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the only offence that is
made cognizable is the contravention of sub-section (1) of Section
4, and the police cannot investigate other offences except on the
complaint of the officer concerned and with the order of the E
Magistrate. In Investigating a cognizable offence which they are
entitled to, it may be that certain facts which may amount to an
offence under special Acts may also be disclosed. But that would
not deprive the police of their power to Investigate a cognizable
offence _not falling under the special statute." F

Mr. Sen has submitted that Section 62 of FERA makes all offences
punishable under Section 56 non-cognizable, thereby excluding the juris-
diction of police officer to investigate such offences. The provisions of
Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, cannot apply
to investigation of such offences. Mr. Sen has also submitted that violation G
of Section 25 (restriction on purchase of properties abroad) is punishable
under Section 56 of FERA, Section 62 has been enacted notwithstanding
anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. The said Section 62
has been enacted to prevent police from initiating action in case of alleged
FERA violations. The jurisdiction of police is normally excluded from H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A several economic offences as they can be properly investigated by special-
ized agencies only. Mr. Sen has submitted that Section 45 of FERA is the
only exception where powers have been conferred upon police in case a
person is guilty of illegally purchasing or buying foreign exchange in public
place (Section 8(1) FERA). This is the only limited role of police under
B FERA.

Mr. Sen has also submitted that a member of DSPE has only juris-
diction to investigate the offences committed in India. Any offence com-
mitted outside the country does not fall within the purview of the provisions
of DSPE Act. He has submitted that even under Section 188 of the Code
C of Criminal Procedure, the permission of the Central Government is
necessary for investigation for an offence punishable out side the country.
Therefore, in any event, investigation in respect of the offences alleged to
have been commitled by the respondent No. 3 outside India in violation of
FERA cannot be done by any member of CBI.
D
Mr. Sen has also submitted that Sections 3 and 5 of the DSPE Act
cannot be applicable for the offences said to have been committed outside
the country. Mr. Sen has also submitted that Section 25 of FERA provides
that no person resident in India shall, except with the general or special
permission of the Reserve Bank of India, acquire or hold or transfer or
E dispose of by sale, mortgage, gift, settlement or otherwise any immovable
property situate outside India. The offence under Section 25 cannot be
committed in india. Therefore, the powers by the Notification issued under
DSPE Act purporting to authorise the officers of the DSPE to investigate
in respect of the offences committed ourside India under FERA is beyond
F the provisions of the DSPE Act and such Notification is ex facie illegal.
Mr. Sen has, therefore, submitted that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate has rightly rejected the application made under Section 155 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court has rightly rejected
the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
Challenge the said decision of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He
G has, therefore, submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.

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 of DSPE Act, the Central Government may, by
H notification, specify the offences which are to be investigated by the mem-
CENTRALBUREAUOF!NVESTIGATIONv. STA1E[G.N.RAY,J.] 143

bers of DSPE. It is not disputed that notification under section 3 of DSPE A
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 of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administra-
tive Reforms, has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by
B
sub-section (1) 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 alia, to the State of Rajasthan for the investigation
of the offences specified in the Schedule to the said notification. In the C. •
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 offence
committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same
facts have been mentioned. D
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
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 E
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. Under
Section 5(2), when by an order under sub-section (1), the powers and
jurisdiction of the members of the said police establishment are extended F
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 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. G

It is quite evident that members of DSPE are members of special
police force constituted under section 2 of DSPE Act by the Central
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 H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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 slate other than the Union Territory, with the
consent of such State Government, can investigate the offences for viola-
tion of FERA, more so, when the offence is alleged to have been com-
B milled outside indian Territory. It will be apposite al 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,
namely:
c
(a) Directors of Enforcement:

(b) Additional Directors of Enforcement;

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

E Section 4 - Appointment and powers of officers of enforcement :

(1) 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
F Central Govermnent may authorise a Director of Enforcement or
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.
G
(3) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Central
Government may impo:;e, an officer of Enforcement may exercise
the powers and discharged the duties conferred or imposed on
him under this Act.

H Section 5 - Entrustment of functions of Director or other officer
CENlRALBUREAU OFINVESTIGATIONv. STATE [G.N. RAY,J.] 145

of Enforcement : A

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

The aforesaid Sections of FERA indicate that for implementing
enforcement of the provisions of FERA different classes of officers of C
Enforcement have been constituted in Section 3. Under Section 4(1) of
FERA, the Central Government has been authorised to appoint such
persons, as it thinks fit, to be officers of the enforcement. Under sub-sec~
tion (2) of Section 4 of FERA, the Central Government may authorise
some of the senior officials of the Directorate of Enforcement, as men- D
tinned in that sub-section, to appoint officers of enforcement below the
rank of Assistant Director of Enforce;;;ent. Sub-section (3) of Section 4
authorises the Central Govern111ent to impose conditions and limitations in
the exercise of powers and discharge of duties under FERA by an officer
of Enforcement. Section 5 authorises the Central Government to entrust
the functions of Director or other officers of the Enforcement, with such E
conditions and limitations as it thinks fit, to any officer of the 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 of the duties of the Director of Enforcement or any
other officer of the Enforcement under FERA as may be specified in the F
order to be issued by the Central Government.

Jn our view, a combined reading of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of FERA
makes it quite evident that primarily the officer of Enforcement Direc-
torate as n1entioned in Sections 3 and 4 have been empowered to exercise
the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on such officers G
of the Enforcement Directorate under FERA. As it may be expedient in
some cases lo confer powers and duties under FERA to persons outside
the Enforcement Directorate, the Legislature in its \Visdon1 has given
authority to the Central Government under Section 5 of FERA to authorise
any officer of Customs or Central Excise Officer or a police oflicer or any H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A officer of Central Government or State Government to exercise such of the
powers and discharge such of the duties of the Director of Enforcement
or any other officer of Enforcement under FERA as may be specified
subject to such conditions and limitations as deemed fit by the Central
Government.

B The member of DSPE is a member of police force constituted under
DSPE Act by the Central Government. Under DSPE Act, a member of
DSPE can exercise the power of investigation in the offence or offences as
specified in Section 3 of DSF'E Aet within Union Territory. For exercising
power of investigation outside Union Territory, even in respect of offences
C specified under Section 3 of DSPE Act, a notification extending jurisdic-
tion in the State or Slates Ol)tside Union Territory is required to be issued
by the Central Government 'mth the consent of such State Government or
Governments. Unless such notification under Section 5 of DSPE Act is
i~sued, a member of DSPE cannot investigate and exercise jurisdiction
under DSPE Act in respect of offence or offences specified in Section 3
D in a State outside the Union Territory. It has already been indicated that
notifications under Sections 3 and 5 have been issued by the Central
Government authorising members of DSPE to investigate various offences
including offences under FERA in a number of States outside Union
Territory including the State of Rajasthan.
E
In our view, such notifications under Sections 3 and 5 of DSPE 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 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
F respect of offence or offences and in areas as specified in the notification
under Sections 3 and 5. As already indicated. Although officers of Enfor-
cement Directorate are clothed with the powers and duties to enforce
implementation of the provisions of FERA, the Central Government has
been authorised to impose on other officers including a police officer,
G 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 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
H to be an officer under FERA and therefore is not competent to investigate
CEN1RALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATI0Nv. STATE [G.N.RAY,J.) 147

into the offences under FERA A
FERA is a special legislation relating to regulation of foreign ex-
change. FERA is also a central legislation enacted at a later point of time
than the DSPE Act which was enacted in 1946. In our view, Section 4 and
5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not come in aid of the investiga-
tion of the offences under FERA by a member of police force like an B
officer of DSPE in accordance of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sections
4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that in the absence of
· any provision regulating investigation, inquiry or trial of non-I.P.C. offences
i.e. offences under any other law, the investigation, inquiry and trial shall
be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. But FERA is a self
contained code containing comprehensive provisions of investigation, in-
c
quiry and trial for the offences under that Act. The provisions under FERA
gives power to the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement or other
officers duly authorised by the Central Government under FERA to
search, conspirate, recover) arrest, record statements of witnesses, etc.
FERA contains provisions for trial of the offences under FERA and D
imposition of punishment for such offences, FERA, being a special law,
containing provisions for investigation, enquiry, search, seizure, trial and
imposition of punishment for offences under FERA, Section 5 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in respect of offences under
FERA In the decision of Nil Ratan Sircar's case (supra), this Court has
considered the import of the provisions of FERA and has held : E

"It was also urged for the appellant that the provisions of Section 5(2)
of the Code apply to the present case in matters which are not provided
· by the Act. This contention too has no basis. Section 5 provides that all
offences under any law other than the Indian Penal Code shall be inves-
tigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the F
provisions contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, but subject lo any
enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing \Vith such offences.
The Act is a special Act and it provides under Section 19-A for the
necessary investigation into the alleged suspected commission of an offence G
under the Act, by the Director of Enforcement. The provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure therefore will not apply to such investigation by him,
assuming that the expression 'investigation' includes the retaining of the
documents for the purposes of the investigation."

The position is same under the FERA of 1973 as it would appear H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A from its various provisions noted above. The aforesaid case was concerned
with FERA of 1947. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Ajmer
Singh's case (supra) by indicating that the Army Act, Navy Act and Air
Force Act embody a completely self contained and comprehensive Code
and therefore constitute a special law in force providing for special juris-
B diction and powers on court martial and prescribing a special form of
procedure for trial of the offences under the said Acts. Hence, Section 5
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable.

It may alsc be noted that the allegations in the FIR in question,
indicate commission of offences under FERA outside India. DSPE Act has
C been enacted "to make provision for constitution of a special police force
in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the Union Territory, for
the superintendence and administration of the said force and for extension
lo other of the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the said force in
regard lo the investigation of the said offences". Under Sections 1 and 2 of
DSPE Act, the authority under the said Act is to investigate the offences
D committed in the Union Territory or in such other States where the
jurisdiction of the member of DSPE has been extended under Section 5 of
the Act. The member of DSPE, therefore, is not clothed with the authority
lo investigate offences committed outside India. Even under Section 188 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, inves,tigation of an offence committed outside
E Indian territory may be made only with permission of the Central Govern-
ment. Of course, if permission is granted, offe~ces committed outside India
can also be investigated.

[n the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order and the appeal is,, therefore, dismissed.
F
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33 OF 1996.

This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing Order No. 228/2/74-
A VD-ll dated October 26, 1977 i5'mcd by the Government of India under
G Section 5 read with Section 6 of DSPE Act and letter/Circular dated July
18, 1988 issued by the CBI. In view of the judgment passed in the appeal,
indicating the scope and effect of notification issued on October 26, 1977
under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, no further order need be passed
on this Writ Petition and the same stands disposed of.

R.A. Appeal dismissed and petition disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "FERA"Sign in to search