JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, an I.A.S. officer of the Rajasthan cadre and presently posted as Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Plan and Director, PMU in the Department of Planning, has moved this criminal misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.PC. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 20(A) of 2000 registered by Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences u/s 120-B, 167, 168, 177, 177A I.PC. and 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The main contention being raised by the counsel for the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. is that C.B.I. had no jurisdiction to register the F.I.R. under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The F.I.R. has been registered by Shri Rajiv Sharma, SR C.B.I., Jaipur in the police station C.B.I. on the information received in the office through some source in regard to certain advertisements involving some criminal conspiracy with partner of M/s Jupiter Advertisement Services, Jaipur, M/s. Maa Productions, M/s. Goel Stationers, Delhi etc. The allegations concern in regard to certain alleged omissions in issuing advertisements while working as Government officer. There is hardly any necessity to go into any other aspect in the matter except the jurisdiction of the C.B.I. to record/register F.I.R. of its own for the purpose of investigations. 3. Counsel submits that Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act provides that the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Section 5 empowers the Central Government to extend to any area in a State, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the DSPE for the investigation of any offence or classes of offences specified in a notification u/s 3 and where such powers are so extended to the State, the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area. The C.B.I. while so discharging such functions be deemed to be a member of a police force of that area. Section 6 provides in regard to the consent of the State Government to exercise the powers and jurisdiction in the area in the State. 4. `Police Station' has been defined u/s 2(s) Cr.PC. The C.B.I. while so discharging such functions be deemed to be a member of a police force of that area. Section 6 provides in regard to the consent of the State Government to exercise the powers and jurisdiction in the area in the State. 4. `Police Station' has been defined u/s 2(s) Cr.PC. which may mean a post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf. Section 151 Cr.P.C. provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, shall be reduced to writing on direction of SHO and be read over to informant and copy of such information shall be given forthwith to the informant. 5. The Government of Rajasthan vide notification dated 29.2.1991 in exercise of powers conferred u/s 2(s) of Cr.P.C.. had issued a notification that the department of Anti-Corruption in Rajasthan shall be known as Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation and shall deal with all cognizable offences relating to bribe and corruption. Sections under such notifications are mentioned in the notification itself which includes Section 167, 168 etc. A further amendment was made by another notification dated 24.11.1998 and the word `Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation was substituted by the Department of `Anti-corruption Bureau. It is the contention by the petitioner that under the notification dated 25.2.1991, the C.B.I. had no contingency or jurisdiction to investigate the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act as also the penal offence as per notification dated 25.2.1991; the F.I.R. suffers patent illegality in regard to jurisdiction of the C.B.I. Another argument is being made that in view of Section 154 Cr.P.C.. that the information is to be given to the police officer in the police station as to mean a place declared generally or by special order to be a police station. It is submitted that there is no declaration by the State Government published in this behalf, enabling the C.B.I. to register the aforesaid F.I.R. It is submitted that C.B.I. which is a creation of the DSPE Act even after giving its consent by the State Government concerned can engage investigation of the case, but the powers and jurisdiction of C.B.I. does not include the legal contingency to register the F.I.R. itself. Registration of F.I.R. by the C.B.I. for the alleged offence arising in Rajasthan against a person working in connection with the affairs of the State of Rajasthan, according to the petitioner, is not permissible. 6. The petitioner had challenged this very F.I.R. is S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5061/2000 which was disposed of on 5.1.2001, holding that the petitioner had a remedy u/s 482 Cr.P.C.. and, therefore, the present petition has been filed. 7. Per contra, the C.B.I. has filed the reply stating, therein, that there is general consent of the Government of Rajasthan u/s 6 and the order of Central Government extending the jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act including certain other offences mentioned in the notification. Reliance is made on Annexure R-4 and R-5. Annexure R-4 dated 6.1.1989 states that the Government of Rajasthan accords consent of the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of extending the powers and jurisdiction of all the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigation of offences. 8. Annexure R-5 notification dated 6.4.1989 provides that the Central Government with the consent of the State Government including that of Rajasthan extends the power and jurisdiction of the members DSPE to Rajasthan including the offences of Prevention of Corruption Act. English translations of notifications Annexures R-4 and R- 5 as reproduced in written statement are reproduced as under - Annexure R-4. (Translated version of Notification No.25(4) Griha-5/88 dated 6.1.89 of the State of Rajasthan.) "In accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Governor of Rajasthan accords consent of the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of extending the powers and jurisdiction of all the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigation of offences as hereunder- (a) Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988). (b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies relating to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above, and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts." Annexure R-5 dated 6th April, 1989 (English transcript) "S.O In exercise of the powers conferred sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Tripura, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Tripura respectively for investigation of offences as hereunder- (a) Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988). (b) Attempts abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offences or offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts." 9. It is further submitted that under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the DSPE Act, any member of the police above the rank of Sub-Inspector, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, can exercise the powers of the officer-in-charge of Police Station in that area. 10. No reply has been filed by the state of Rajasthan. 11. The following points are agitated - (i) that there was no informant as required u/s 154 Cr.PC. and, therefore, such an F.I.R. cannot be the basis of initiation of any investigation. Reliance is placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, JT 2001 (5) SC 440 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 ; (ii) the investigation can take place only when the F.I.R. is validly recorded after fulfilling the tests as per Section 154 in the police station. Reliance is placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, JT 2001 (5) SC 440 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 ; (ii) the investigation can take place only when the F.I.R. is validly recorded after fulfilling the tests as per Section 154 in the police station. Definition of `officer-in-charge and `police station are read in Section 2(o) and 2(s) of Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Srimanta Manna v. State, AIR 1960 Cal 519 and C.B.I. v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 AIR SCW 305 ; (iii) that under DPSE Act and the notifications mentioned thereunder the investigation as defined u/s 2(n) of Cr.P.C. include all proceedings under the Code by police officer or/by any person who is authorised by the Magistrate in this behalf. C.B.I. imparts authority only in the domain of investigation of offences and no more. It does not encompass the authority to register an F.I.R. Registration of F.I.R. and investigation are indeed very distinct. Reliance is also placed upon in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707 , UOI v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Cr.L.J. 859 and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (supra) and many other authorities in this regard; (iv) as per the notification dated 25.2.1991 issued by the State of Rajasthan, the competent authority to investigate the matter is the Anti-corruption Bureau and not the C.B.I. 12. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is a special Act with the aims and objects to constitute a special police force and to make provisions for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is a special Act with the aims and objects to constitute a special police force and to make provisions for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers. The jurisdiction of the members of the said force is constituted u/s 2 by the Central Government; have been given the powers to investigate the offences committed in the relevant areas subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf; any member of the said police establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf can exercise the powers of the officer-in-charge of the police station in the area in which such police officer for the time being is authorised to act and he shall be deemed to be the officer incharge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station. The offences are to be specified by the Government. The superintendence of such force is vested in the Central Government. The Central Government is authorised by an order to extend the functions of the force to any area in the State and where any such order is made in relation to any other area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5, but subject to any order made by the Central Government, it shall be deemed to be an officer-in-charge of the police station discharging functions of said police station within the limits of that police station. Section 6 provides that nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area without the consent of the Government of that State. The provisions and objects of the C.B.I. Act is very clear. The special force prescribes jurisdiction to investigate the matter either by an order of the Central Government in the area where Act is applicable or also in the State with the consent of the Governor of the State. The provisions and objects of the C.B.I. Act is very clear. The special force prescribes jurisdiction to investigate the matter either by an order of the Central Government in the area where Act is applicable or also in the State with the consent of the Governor of the State. The C.B.I. is a special force constituted to investigate matter in special circumstances; the special circumstances are where the Central Government or the State Government or even the High Court is of the opinion that the matter requires investigation by the C.B.I. No C.B.I. Officer of any rank can record the F.I.R. himself and to investigate the matter without there being any such authority from the Central Government, State Government or the High Court. If the action of the recording of F.I.R. and investigating the same by the C.B.I. of his own without there being any order from the Central Government or the State Government to investigate that offence is upheld, the C.B.I. would be acting as a parallel agency as that of State police station as defined in the Cr.P.C. in States. Virtually, there would not be any difference between the ordinary police force maintained by the State and the special force of C.B.I. which are to act under specific orders to investigate the specific offences by the direction of Central Government. Even though the State might have given a general sanction for vesting in the C.B.I. the investigation of certain offences, but the State is required to pass a specific order in regard to that specific offence authorising such an officer to investigate the matter through a special agency. In no case the officer or the special agency of his own or upon his own knowledge can register the F.I.R. himself and also investigate the matters of his own without there being any specific order by the State Government or the Central Government or the High Court to investigate that particular offence. 13. In view of the above-said reasons and discussions, I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such F.I.R. could have been registered by the C.B.I. officer of his own or to investigate the matter of his own without there being any specific order by the competent authority as is required u/s 5 or Section 6 of the Special Act. 14. 14. During the period when the judgment stood reserved, the petitioner has filed a misc. application, attaching therein, certain orders of the State of Rajasthan to the effect that State of Rajasthan had already withdrawn the notification/consent and, therefore, the C.B.I. had no authority to register or investigate the matter at all. Notice of the application was given and the case was listed on 20.11.2001 under the heading To be mentioned' and arguments were heard on the application on 24.11.2001. 15. Counsel submits that vide order dated 21.11.1989 (Annexure-A) attached with the application No. 3911 dated 7.11.2001 moved on 7.11.2001 in this court, the Union of India vide the said letter had addressed the State of Rajasthan that the Government of India is proposing to extend the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to Rajasthan and, therefore, it was desired that the state was required to give its consent which consent should be total in accordance with law so that it should not be challenged. The aforesaid letter was replied by the State of Rajasthan vide letter No. 2/8(10) Home 581 dated wherein the Government of India was informed that it was not possible any further for, the State of Rajasthan to extend the provisions of the Act giving special powers to the C.B.I. in State of Rajasthan. The said letter is attached as Annexure-B to the application. 16. Notice was issued to the State of Rajasthan to assist the Court in this regard and to inform this court whether in view of the letter dated 26.6.1990, the consent of extending the act of Rajasthan has been withdrawn or not. Learned Advocate General appears in response to the notice, and states at Bar that for all purposes, vide letter dated 26.6.1990 the provisions of Act were not extended to State of Rajasthan any further. 17. Counsel for the C.B.I. relies on letter dated 19.6.1961 attached with the reply to the aforesaid misc. application wherein the Government had agreed to the proposal to bring under the purview of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and another letter of 18.12.1956 when such permission was initially given and submits that the letter Annexure dated 18.12.1956 is still in force and cannot be deemed to have been revoked by the letter dated 26.6.1990. 18. application wherein the Government had agreed to the proposal to bring under the purview of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and another letter of 18.12.1956 when such permission was initially given and submits that the letter Annexure dated 18.12.1956 is still in force and cannot be deemed to have been revoked by the letter dated 26.6.1990. 18. Advocate General has also produced the record in this regard wherein just after a detailed correspondence with the Union of India and the Government of Rajasthan, the home affairs and justice Department, Government of Rajasthan had specifically informed the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, New Delhi and also to the Director, C.B.I. that there is no general consent of the State of Rajasthan to the C.B.I. to investigate the matter specially after 7.9.1989. Photo- state copy of the said letter is placed on record. 19. The Union of India after superseding all the earlier notifications and amendments from time to time had specified the offences and classes of offences for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act and in view of the said notification had asked a fresh consent from the states vide letter dated 29.11.1989. State of Rajasthan on 26.6.1990 had not accorded the consent and therefore, there is no consent existing at present which is mandated by the statute. 20. After going through the Government of Rajasthan file, it is clear that so far there is no general consent of State of Rajasthan in the matter after 7.9.1989 and refusal by the State Government on 26.6.1990. Letter dated 26.6.1990 is reproduced as under- jktLFkku ljdkj x`g ( xzqi&5 ) foHkkx dzekad&i2@8@10 x`t 5@8] t;iqj fnukad 26 twu] mi lfpo ( lrdZrk ) Hkkjr ljdkj dkfeZd yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isU'ku eU=ky; ( dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx ) ubZ fnYyh fo"k; % fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dh /kkjk 5 ds v/khu ubZ vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj dh lgefr fHktokus ckcrA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkids eU=ky; ds v)Z 'kkldh; i= dzekad 228@8@89 ,0oh0Mh0 ( 11 ) ] fnukad 21@11@89 ds lanHkZ esa funsZ'kkuqlkj fuosnu gS fd fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl vf/kfu;e dh izLrkfor /kkjkvksa dks jktLFkku jkT; rd c<+k;s tkus dh lgefr fn;k tkuk jkT; ljdkj mfpr ugha le>rh gSA Hkonh; g0@& ( ts0ds0 lpnso ) fo'ks"kf/kdkjh x`g lqj{kk foHkkx 26 twu 1990 21. In view of the aforesaid categorical stand of State of Rajasthan. In view of the aforesaid categorical stand of State of Rajasthan. I hold that there is no general consent available as was required u/s 6 of the Act enabling the C.B.I. to have jurisdiction for State of Rajasthan until and unless it is so authorised under the law. 22. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The action of the respondent C.B.I. in recording the F.I.R. and to investigate the matter in contravention to the provisions of section 5 or Section 6 cannot be sustained and is quashed. 23. For the above-said reasons, the misc. petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.Misc. Petition allowed. *******