R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the father of deceased Shobhaben who was a Lady Doctor working in Opthalmology Department of Civil Hospital and she was found dead in the evening of 26-2-1986 in bathroom attached to the operation theatre of the hospital. The investigating authorities came to the conclusion that this is a case of suicide and closed the chapter. The petitioner strongly suspects that this is a case of homicide and the investigation is casual improper wholly unsatisfactory lacking in incisiveness and proceeded with pre-determined notions and conclusion of the theory of suicide and no attempt has been made to probe and investigate the case of homicide. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly attacked the post-mortem report of Dr. Deshmukh whereby Dr. Deshmukh has opined that it seems to be suicidal in nature. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on the opinion of Dr. C. K. Parikh a Medicolegal Consultant of Bombay who on consideration of the available papers and the post-mortem report of Dr. Deshmukh has come to the conclusion that there is every reason to believe that the victim died a homicidal death and the dead body was dumped into the bathroom from elsewhere and his conclusion is that this case needs a very thorough and meticulous investigation to arrive at the true cause of death and the post-mortem findings are strongly indicative of homicidal death. ( 2 ) ON behalf of the respondents Mr. S. R. Divetia the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that not only the ordinary investigating agency has investigated the case but also at the instance of the petitioner the State Govt. had directed the Crime Branch to investigate into this incident and after the investigation by Crime Branch the conclusion is that this is a case of suicide and now nothing is required to be done in the case and this petition deserves to be dismissed. He has further submitted that the investigation is an executive function of the State and the Court cannot interfere with such functions of investigation. He has also submitted that after a lapse of more than two years no useful purpose will be served by directing further investigation by any other agency. He has further submitted that the investigation is an executive function of the State and the Court cannot interfere with such functions of investigation. He has also submitted that after a lapse of more than two years no useful purpose will be served by directing further investigation by any other agency. He has submitted that even if it is presumed that this is a case of homicide since no person is suspected as an accused of that offence the exercise of further investigation after two years will be a futility. He has also submitted that the prayer of the petitioner to entrust further investigation to C. B. I. would also be out of place in view of the fact that C. B. I. is a specialised agency which investigates into crimes of special nature and not offences relating to human body and the resources of C. B. I. being limited the same should be utilised only in cases where it is absolutely necessary and not for routine cases where State agencies are ordinarily supposed to investigate. ( 3 ) THE first person to notice the dead body as per the present material is a nurse Nirmala who had come on duty at 8-00 p. m. and at about 10-00 p. m. when she wanted to answer the call of nature she went to the bathroom attached to the staff room opposite operation theatre. She pushed the door of the bathroom and she saw two legs and therefore she thought that it might be some patient. Therefore she and Khodidas Dhulabhai had seen in the torch light. She could not initially identify the person. However subsequently she had come to know that it was the dead body of Dr. Shobhaben Khatwani and in her leg a syringe was inserted. She Khodidas and watchman Amrutabhai all the three had gone to report to Dr. Mathur in Professors Quarters and when they informed him he informed Chhatrapal and R. M. O. Jadeja and R. M. O. Jadeja had informed Shahibag Police Station. Nirmala stated that she did not know anything about the cause of death. Dr. Jadeja stated that Dr. She Khodidas and watchman Amrutabhai all the three had gone to report to Dr. Mathur in Professors Quarters and when they informed him he informed Chhatrapal and R. M. O. Jadeja and R. M. O. Jadeja had informed Shahibag Police Station. Nirmala stated that she did not know anything about the cause of death. Dr. Jadeja stated that Dr. Mathur had telephoned him and informed him that a dead body of some woman is lying in the bathroom of the operation theatre of Eye Department and therefore he had gone there and in the light of the hand torch he had seen the dead body at 11-30 p. m. and it was of Dr. Shobha. The statement of Dr. Mathur was recorded after about a month on 23-3-1986 wherein he has stated that on the date of the incident at about 11-00 p. m. sister Nirmala and Watchman had come to his bungalow and informed him that the door of the bathroom opposite operation theatre could not be opened and after two to three pushes the door could be half opened and a dead body of one lady doctor of anaesthesia department was lying there. On receipt of this information Dr. Mathur had informed R. M. O. Jadeja on telephone. As seen earlier R. M. O. Jadeja had stated that he was informed by Dr. Mathur that a dead body of some woman was lying in the bathroom of the operation theatre and he was not told as to whether she was Lady Doctor or Dr. Shobha or that she belonged to anaesthesia department. Dr. Mathur also stated that having regard to the finding of a syringe inserted in her leg and the medicine used and the further fact that Dr. Shobha was herself a doctor of anaesthesia department Dr. Mathur believed that she had committed suicide by taking injection. The watchman Amrutabhai Thakor has stated that he had come to the duty at 10-00 p. m. on 26-2-1986 and at about 10-30 to 10-45 the sweeper Khodidas had come stating that nurse Nirmala had called and therefore he had gone there and he was informed by sister Nirmala that there is some person lying in the bathroom. Therefore he had seen in the light of the torch in his hand that some Lady Doctor was lying dead. He had come to know after Dr. Therefore he had seen in the light of the torch in his hand that some Lady Doctor was lying dead. He had come to know after Dr. Jadeja had come and gone into the bathroom that the dead body was that of Dr. Shobha. The sweeper Khodidas has also stated that he was called by sister Nirmala stating that somebody was lying in the bathroom. The door of the bathroom was half opened and two legs were seen. He had therefore gone and called the Watchman and as there was no light in the bathroom the watchman Amrutabhai had thrown light with the hand torch and some Lady Doctor vas seen lying dead. In her second statement recorded after about three months on 21 the nurse Nirmala has stated that on her trying to open the door of the bathroom as the door could not be opened she had given two to three kicks by her legs and therefore the door was opened and she could even hear the sound of the opening of the hook of the door. She has also stated that if the hook is not properly fitted inside the door gets opened by giving push from outside and that was her own experience. Accordingly she had given push and the hook had got opened and really the door was hooked and closed from inside. This theory in certainly something very crucial and important and it was not found in her first statement and it comes out for the first time after about three months. This is a very important circumstance having considerable bearing on the question whether this is a case of suicide or homicide. If Dr. Shobha had committed suicide in the bathroom she would enter the bathroom herself close it and thereafter administer injection to herself and there would be none to open the door from inside. On the other hand if it is a case of homicide the person causing the death of Shobha has to go out from the bathroom and the bathroom could not have been closed or secured from inside. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Patel the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this subsequent statement of nurse Nirmala has been recorded a confirm the pre-conceived conclusion of suicide. Mr. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Patel the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this subsequent statement of nurse Nirmala has been recorded a confirm the pre-conceived conclusion of suicide. Mr. patel has submitted that the very fact that the door could be open nurse Nirmala without any special effort (as per her previous statement) shows that the door was not closed and secured from inside. Even if it was closed from inside it would ordinarily be presumed that someone is inside the bathroom using it and therefore the person would give knocks and even would give shouts or would go to another bathroom. But none of these things were necessary because the door was not closed from inside and the nurse Nirmala could open it easily. The attempt of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to show that the investigation is highly improper and unsatisfactory and it has proceeded with the conclusion arrived at before hand and the statements have been recorded to suit such pre-determined conclusion. At this stage the Court cannot come to the conclusion one way or the other about the condition of the door but it must be recognised that the condition of the door whether it was closed from inside or not is a very material circumstance. If a person is so minded to commit suicide will naturally secure that the door of the bathroom is properly closed so that such person can without any disturbance find the vein and inject the medicine. It is unbelievable that the person committing suicide in this manner would leave the door unsecured or improperly secured. Therefore when Nirmala had not stated about the door being closed from inside was a material circumstance on which if a material improvement was to be made by the witness after three months a searching cross examination and incisive questioning would be called. However it is not found. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that the another circumstance is that the investigation is thoroughly lacking in fixing the probable time of death. Even the post-mortem examination has not suggested anything whatsoever. The time of her taking last meal is reasonably ascertained from the statements of witnesses. She had taken lunch with her colleague. The post-mortem examination should show as to after how many hours of her last meal she had died. Even the post-mortem examination has not suggested anything whatsoever. The time of her taking last meal is reasonably ascertained from the statements of witnesses. She had taken lunch with her colleague. The post-mortem examination should show as to after how many hours of her last meal she had died. No such attempt has been made by the investigation agency to ascertain the probable time of death. This is also a material aspect because the bathroom was not having light on that day. She is found dead at 10-00 Oclock in the evening. She was found to be moving till 6-00 Oclock in the evening on that day. Between 6-00 p. m. and 10-00 p. m. on that day her whereabouts are not known and not ascertained. It is submitted that she could not have entered the bathroom at 6-00 p. m. and remain undetected like that for four hours after her death because the bathroom is frequently used by numerous persons of the staff. Therefore it is very likely that she was found dead within very short time of half an hour or hour at the most of her having entered the bathroom and it is impossible in such darkness to self inject the medicine in the vein. It is therefore submitted that the theory of suicide is completely ill founded. It is therefore submitted that the investigation has not proceeded on this line because it has proceeded only on the pre-determined and pre-conceived conclusion of suicide. ( 5 ) IT is also submitted that there was an injury on her face which was not superficial. The photograph also shows that the injury is not superficial In the post-mortem note also there is reference to this injury. However Dr. Deshmukh has stated that the injury is post-mortem injury. However Dr. Deshmukh has not given any symptoms or reasons why he has come to the conclusion that the injury as post-mortem injury. It is therefore contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the post-mortem examination is unsatisfactory in this respect also. The inquest panchnama shows that there is injury on the nose and the nasal bone was visible and the ants were moving about nose region. The skin of left cheek from near the nose has been found pricked off to the extent of 3 and blood was also oozed out to some extent. The inquest panchnama shows that there is injury on the nose and the nasal bone was visible and the ants were moving about nose region. The skin of left cheek from near the nose has been found pricked off to the extent of 3 and blood was also oozed out to some extent. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the report of Dr. C. K. Parikh Medicolegal Consultant of Bombay which is found at Annexure L to this petition. That report has been given sometime in December 1986 Dr. Parikh in his comments para (h) has stated that it is not possible even for an expert to say confidently from the external examination alone in a case of unnatural death if the injuries found on the body/face are ante-mortem or post-mortem in nature. A histopathological examination of the tissue for signs of vital reaction or laboratory studies for determination of enzymes are essential to give a definite opinion and therefore in absence of such investigation and examination the conclusion that the injuries on the victims face were post-mortem in nature would not be acceptable. Dr. Parikh has also wondered as to how the operation theatre the adjoining bathroom and the hall are so unhygienic as to have rodents freely moving about when ordinarily hygienic conditions are required to be maintained. Dr. Parikh has also stated that if this injury is really ante-mortem and not post-mortem it would be a strong indication against the theory of suicide and in favour of theory of homicide. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that not only no searching cross examination and incisive investigation has been made as to the whereabouts of the victim between 6-00 to 10-00 p. m. on that fateful day but no investigation whatsoever has been made to ascertain as to the persons who had an occasion to use that bathroom between 6-00 and 10-00 p. m. That also would have hair owed the time gap. ( 8 ) DR. Parikh has also commented that if there is any struggle or resistance there would be a number of signs. However there is no mention one way or the other regarding tears missing buttons presence of stains or foreign material such as hair or any other trace evidence. ( 8 ) DR. Parikh has also commented that if there is any struggle or resistance there would be a number of signs. However there is no mention one way or the other regarding tears missing buttons presence of stains or foreign material such as hair or any other trace evidence. Nail clippings have also not been preserved which might be useful to trace the evidence of tag of epithelium of the assailant for evidence of any struggle. Dr. Parikh also comments that the post-mortem report does not record the extent of rigor mortis as also the degree of fixation of post-mortem lividity. Dr. Parikh also mentions that a butterfly injury on the face can result from the assailant strongly holding the victims face to stiffle her cries for help. Dr. Parikh also mentions that post-mortem report does not mentions anything regarding teeth marks though the viscera show marks of violent asphyxial death. Dr. Parikh further stated that though the post-mortem findings are strongly suggestive of violent asphyxial death-hypostails of dark red colour congested and oedamatous blood vessels of the brain oedamatous lungs with dark fluid blood coming out with froth on sectioning petechial haemorrhages on the pleura right side of the heart containing dark fluid blood-detailed dissection of the neck which might clinch the issue is not done. Dr. Parikh has also dealt with the theory of suicide by self injection with sodium pentothal. He has referred to the circumstances that she was happy at home and was not suffering from depression or any serious disease and that she had got promotion in recent past and therefore she had no apparent reason for committing suicide and Dr. Parikh has also referred to the place i. e. bathroom which was not locked from inside; thereby ruling out the theory of suicide. He has also referred to the medical aspects of the incident ruling out the possibility of suicide. Parikh has also referred to the place i. e. bathroom which was not locked from inside; thereby ruling out the theory of suicide. He has also referred to the medical aspects of the incident ruling out the possibility of suicide. He has stated that sodium pentothal is highly irritant and ultra-short acting and as soon as even a small quantity is injected the person becomes unconscious and it is not possible to continue injecting till death unless a fatal dose is very rapidly subjected which is also not possible in the circumstances of this case because if she succeeded in injecting a fatal dose rapidly sodium pentothal being a quick acting drug death would be immediate and there would be no time for the body to develop changes of violent asphyxial death. ( 9 ) ALTHOUGH it is neither possible nor proper for this Court at this stage to pronounce upon the validity of these contentions the fact remains that these aspects have not been investigated. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no attempt has been made to take anger prints on the syringe vial and other materials found with the dead body. The person who is dying is naturally not interested in concealing the finger prints. But if someone else had caused the death either some finger print would be found or such person had taken care to remove such finger prints or see that no finger prints are left. In such case of unnatural death the investigating agency should have tried to ascertain whether there are any marks of finger prints which could be obtained by applying the methods known to forensic science. But no such attempt was made. Dr. Parikh has ultimately came to the conclusion that the theory of suicide by self injecting sodium pentothal is neither supported by the circumstances of the case nor by the post-mortem findings and he has also concluded that the post-mortem has been done in a very casual manner without taking into consideration the responsibility it involves and the conclusions have been reached not supported by the post-mortem report itself. Before obtaining this report in writing the petitioner had obtained oral opinion or Dr. Parikh which was to the effect that the death was violent asphyxial death. ( 11 ) THE incident had taken place on 26-2-1986. Before obtaining this report in writing the petitioner had obtained oral opinion or Dr. Parikh which was to the effect that the death was violent asphyxial death. ( 11 ) THE incident had taken place on 26-2-1986. On the representation of the petitioner to the Government and the Chief Minister the Government had directed on 7-6-1986 that the CID Crime may inquire into the case at senior level. On 11-9-1986 the petitioner wrote a letter Annexure K to the petition) addressed to the Special Inspector General of Police (Crimes) stating that he had consulted Dr. C. K. Parikh a Medicolegal Consultant of Bombay and he had given his opinion that the death of Dr. Shobha was due to asphyxia. He had therefore suggested that Dr. Parikh be consulted by the investigating agency and that the petitioner was prepared to bear the expenses. The petitioner had also shown his willingness to pay the professional fees and expenses of any other forensic expert whom the CID wants to consult. However the office of the Special Inspector General of Police (Crimes) did not do anything about the said request of the petitioner and by the letter dated 1-12-1985 a report was made to the State Government that the case has been investigated by an officer of the rank of Police Inspector and it has been found in the investigation that the death is by suicide. Thereupon the Government again asked the Special Inspector General of Police (Crimes) by the letter dated 17 to examine the representation made by the petitioner dated 18 However very surprisingly without any such examination of the representation or forensic or medical opinion within five days i. e. on 22-12-1985 a cryptic reply was given by the office of the Special Inspector General of Police (Crimes) that the final report made earlier was complete and proper and nothing was required to be done from that end and if the petitioner desired he may file his private complaint for the offences of murder. The Government also replied to the petitioner by the letter dated 3-2-1987 that the death was due to suicide and there was no other offence. It is very surprising that even after the Government had asked the investigating agency to look into the forensic and medical aspects pointed out by the petitioner supported by De. The Government also replied to the petitioner by the letter dated 3-2-1987 that the death was due to suicide and there was no other offence. It is very surprising that even after the Government had asked the investigating agency to look into the forensic and medical aspects pointed out by the petitioner supported by De. Parikh the office of the Special Inspector General of Police and the investigating agency refused to look into that aspect and replied back to the Government without any such investigation and more surprising is that the Government also accepted that when specific direction of the Government was absolutely disregarded. ( 12 ) MR. Divetia the learned A. P. P. has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Sampatlal AIR 1985 SC 195 more particularly Para 13 at page 200 where the Supreme Court observed as under:"it is certainly not for this Court at the present stage to examine and come to a conclusion as to whether this was a case of suicide or murder. If as a result of investigation evidence is gathered and a trial takes place the Sessions Judge will decide that controversy and it may be that in due course such controversy may be canvassed before this Court in some form or the other. It would therefore be wholly in appropriate at this stage to enter into such a question"in that case two young boys were found missing since 2-3-1983 and their dead bodies had been thrown on a railway track on 5-4-1983 and they had been disposed of by the local police without taking any steps for their identification. It seems that it was taken as a case of suicide. However there was great public uproar and the High Court came to be moved by some public spirited citizens and the High Court had directed investigation by special officer i. e. Dr. Inspector General of Police CBI to inquire into the matter. However no hearing was afforded to the State Government or its officers when the direction to appoint the Special Officer was made and the Supreme Court observed that there could be no scope for appointing a special officer unless the statutory channel of investigation was found not to have functioned properly. However no hearing was afforded to the State Government or its officers when the direction to appoint the Special Officer was made and the Supreme Court observed that there could be no scope for appointing a special officer unless the statutory channel of investigation was found not to have functioned properly. In that case the authorities were not given an opportunity to show how they were discharging their statutory obligation to carry out investigation. The Supreme Court observed as under:"the appointment of a Special Officer with a direction to inquire into the commission of an offence can only be on the basis that there has not been a proper investigation. There is a well defined hierarchical administrative set up of the Police in the State of West Bengal as in all other States and to have created a new channel of inquiry or investigation is likely to create an impression that everything is not well with the statutory agency and it is likely to cast a stigma on the regular Police hierarchy". The Supreme Court also referred to King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 where the Privy Council observed as under:"the functions of the judiciary and the Police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function always of course subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Sec. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus". The case of State of Bihar v. J. A. C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 326 was also referred where also the above Privy Council judgment was followed and the following observations were made:"this view of the judicial Committee clearly demarcates the functions of the executive and the judiciary in the field of detection of crime and its subsequent trial and it would appear that the power of the Police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary". In the case of Bhagwantsinh v. Commissioner of Police Delhi AIR 1983 SC 826 the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the investigation by the Police was suffering from casualness lacking in incisiveness and unreasonable dilatoriness. In the case of Bhagwantsinh v. Commissioner of Police Delhi AIR 1983 SC 826 the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the investigation by the Police was suffering from casualness lacking in incisiveness and unreasonable dilatoriness. The Supreme Court noted that the Court has to be alive to the fact that the scheme of the law is that the investigation has been entrusted to the Police and it is ordinarily not subjected to normal supervisory power of the Court but when the investigation was improper the Court was not powerless to direct further investigation or investigation by different agencies. In that case the investigation was already transferred by the Government from ordinary Police to CBI and hence the Supreme Court was not required to give any direction. In Para 29 the Supreme Court emphasized that it is necessary that the investigating agency must disabuse its mind of the tentative conclusion that death was suicidal; adding that it does not mean that after a proper investigation. They may not reach the same conclusion and it was emphasized that the conclusion should not have been the basis upon which the investigation should have proceeded. ( 13 ) FROM the above judgments of the Supreme Court it is clear that investigation in cognizable offences in the field reserved for the executive and the Police authorities have statutory right to investigate into the cognizable offence and to file a chargesheet and the scope for judicial interference in this investigative process is restricted. However as laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court judgments where the investigation is casual unsatisfactory and or directed towards a particular conclusion right from the beginning such investigation can be interfered with and even can be transferred from ordinary Police agency to other agencies. ( 14 ) IN the present case the unsatisfactory nature of investigation is on many counts as pointed out earlier. The extensive reading of the statements of witnesses show that the witnesses who have no knowledge of the subject have given their opinion that the deceased was anaesthetist and that she seems to have committed suicide. The material factors coming against the theory of suicide namely whether the door was closed and locked from inside statement of the nurse Nirmala having been taken after three months have remained without proper investigation and searching cross examination. Even though Dr. The material factors coming against the theory of suicide namely whether the door was closed and locked from inside statement of the nurse Nirmala having been taken after three months have remained without proper investigation and searching cross examination. Even though Dr. Parikh has given a contrary opinion and made strong comments against the postmortem report and even though the Government had asked the Special Inspector General of Police (Crimes) to consider that aspect the investigating agency has chosen not to do the same. Having regard to the totality of circumstances the investigation made so far fails to inspire confidence. It is therefore necessary that other independent agency is directed to make proper investigation into this incident and thereafter take further steps in accordance with law. ( 15 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and the Central Bureau of Investigation Ahmedabad is directed to undertake the investigation of the case and to submit its report in accordance with law and take such further steps as may be necessary in accordance with law and for that purpose the respondents authorities are directed to hand over all the papers of the investigation made so far to the CBI Ahmedabad and to give such co-operation and assistance to the CBI as the CBI may require. Rule is made absolute accordingly. DATE: 20-5-1988. JUDGMENT. By the judgment and order dated 18/04/1988 the respondent No. 5 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was directed to undertake the investigation of the case and to submit its report in accordance with law. The CBI Ahmedabad has addressed a letter to this Court stating that the CBI Ahmedabad Branch is only competent to investigate the cases which are notified under Sec. 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and such a notification under Sec. 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act is essential in this case and therefore it is necessary to issue a direction to the Central Government to issue such a notification. 2 Mr. M. D. Pandya learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI has shown a letter dated 21/10/1980 from Deputy Legal Advisor (II) / CBI to All Superintendents of Police Special Police Establishment Central Bureau of Investigation enclosing therewith a list of offences notified under Sec. 3 of the Act and Item No. 1 of that list shows several sections of Indian Penal Code including Secs. 302 303 304 304 307 and 308 of IPC. In view of this no notification is required to be issued under Sec. 3 of the Act. 3 Mr. Pandya further pointed out that under Sec. 174 of Criminal Procedure Code whenever an investigation into suspected of death is required the he carried out it can be done only by the officer-in-charge of a Police Solution or some other Police Officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf. As far as Sec. 174 is concerned it is a procedural Section and not a substantive Section defining or prescribing offences and Central Government cannot issue any notification under Sec. 3 of the Act for the purpose of Sec. 174 of Cr. P. C. 4 In the case of State of W. B. v. Sampatlal reported in AIR 1985 SC 195 in Para 13 the Supreme Court considered the question whether High Court could appoint CBI to inquire into the matter in absence of proper consent of the State Government and the Supreme Court observed as follows:"one of the controversies which loomed large before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was as to the appointment of the DBI CBI to inquire into the matter in the absence of proper consent of the State Government. That question has not been recanvassed before us and it has been accepted by Counsel for all the parties including the Additional Solicitor General that while Sec. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (Act for short) would require the consent of the State Government before jurisdiction under Sec. 5 of that Act is exercised by officers of that establishment when a direction is given by the Court in an appropriate case consent envisaged under Sec. 6 of the Act would not be a condition precedent to compliance with the Courts direction In our considered opinion Sec. 6 of the Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and Counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position. In this view the impugned order of the learned single Judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attach for want of sanction under Sec. 6 of the Act". In this view the impugned order of the learned single Judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attach for want of sanction under Sec. 6 of the Act". Thus it is clear that while a direction is given by the Court in an appropriate case consent as envisaged under Sec. 6 of the Act is not a condition precedent to compliance with the Courts direction and Sec 6 of the Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction to CBI to conduct an investigation. When the offences are already notified under Sec. 3 the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the CBI are extended and they discharge the functions of a Police Officer in that area and they are vested with powers functions and privileges and are subject to the liabilities of a Police Officer belonging to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 5 However if the CBI has any doubt and it wants any authorisation from the State Government under Sec. 174 Cr. P. C. it is open to CBI to approach to the State Government for that purpose and the State Government shall do the needful expeditiously in accordance with law. Rule made absolute. .