JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. I propose to dispose of all the criminal revision petitions by this common judgment since a common question of law, based on similar facts, is involved therein. The accused persons in CBI FIR No. RC 2/S/2007-Kol dated 21.6.2007 have filed the criminal petitions/revision petitions under Sections 482 /397 /401 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the aforesaid FIR, subsequently registered as Complaint Case No. 763 of 2010 in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate Assam, Guwahati after filing of the charge-sheets. One set of the charge-sheets were filed on 14.1.2009 and in one case the charge sheet was submitted on 1.3.2010. Some of the accused persons have been charge sheeted under Sections 120B /420 /471 and some of the accused persons have been charge-sheeted only under Sections 420/471 and in some cases charge-sheets have been submitted under Sections 120B /419 /420 /468 /471 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of the charge-sheets processes were issued and cognizance of the charge sheets was taken by the court. After making their appearances, the accused persons filed individual petitions challenging the authority of the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBF" in short) to investigate the case on the ground that the CBI had no jurisdiction to investigate the case in Assam without first obtaining consent from the State Government, as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (briefly the "Act"). Hence, the accused persons have approached this court praying for quashing the criminal proceedings and also the orders whereby the learned Special Judicial Magistrate has rejected their petitions in this regard. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, Mr. N. Dutta and Mr. A.B. Choudhury learned Sr. counsels for the petitioners. The CBI was represented by its Standing Counsel, Mr. A.C. Buragohain. Also heard Ms. Verma, learned counsel for the Family Welfare and Health Department, Govt. of Assam. 3. The challenge to the charge-sheets submitted by the CBI revolves around its jurisdiction to investigate the offences that took place in Assam without first obtaining consent from the State Government. Referring to Section 6 of the Act the learned Sr. counsels for the petitioners made forceful representation that no offence, committed in a State, can be investigated by the CBI without prior approval from the State Govt. Referring to Section 6 of the Act the learned Sr. counsels for the petitioners made forceful representation that no offence, committed in a State, can be investigated by the CBI without prior approval from the State Govt. According to the learned counsels the language of Section 6 is unambiguous with regard to obtaining of prior approval from the concerned State, even if the offences are covered by the Notifications issued under Section 3 and power of investigation is vested upon the CBI under Section 5 of the Act. In support of this submission, the learned counsels referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, rendered in the case of M. Balakrishna Reddy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi; reported in (2008) 4 SCC 409 , State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. The Committee for PDR, West Bengal & Ors.; reported in 2010 (2) GLT SC 1 and Rangku Dutta @ Ranjan Kumar Dutta Vs. State of Assam; reported in 2011 (3) GLT SC 12. The learned counsels also argued that if an investigation and/or enquiry are to be done in a particular manner the same should be carried out strictly in accordance with law and there should be no deviation from the laid down procedure. In support of this submission the learned counsels referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Privy Council; rendered in the case of Nazir Ahmed Vs. King-Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253. 4. Adverting to the facts of the case, the learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that for the same offence an FIR was lodged to CBI at Delhi by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India on 19.2007 alleging that some students have taken admission in the medical colleges in Assam against All India Quota for P.G./U.G. seats for the academic sessions 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 on the basis of forged recommendation letters. This FIR was registered as RC 2/S/2007- Kol dated 21.6.2007. After registration of a formal case a copy of the FIR was forwarded to the court at Guwahati on 22.6.2007. Since the charge-sheets were submitted in the year 2009-2010 the Complaint Case was registered in the court at Guwahati in the year 2010 being CR Case No. 763 of 2010. This FIR was registered as RC 2/S/2007- Kol dated 21.6.2007. After registration of a formal case a copy of the FIR was forwarded to the court at Guwahati on 22.6.2007. Since the charge-sheets were submitted in the year 2009-2010 the Complaint Case was registered in the court at Guwahati in the year 2010 being CR Case No. 763 of 2010. Before filing of the complaint at Delhi, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department had also lodged an FIR for the same incident on 15.7.2006 and this FIR was registered as Dispur PS Case No. 694 of 2006 under Sections 419 /468 /471 /34 IPC. The learned counsels for the petitioners drew my attention to the forwarding letter of the CBI dated 22.6.2007 to contend that the investigation was already taken-up by the CBI on 2.6.2007, whereas, the approval/consent to investigate Guwahati case was given by the Assam Govt. only on 30.6.2007. According to the learned counsels this is absolutely not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Act and, as such, the charge-sheets submitted by the CBI are liable to be quashed. The learned counsels for the petitioners also urged that for the same offences registration of two FIRs are not permissible under the law and in support of this submission, the learned counsels referred to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 . 5. Per contra, Sri Buragohain, learned Standing counsel, CBI submitted that the offences incorporated in the charge-sheets were duly notified by the Central Government in the Notification dated 7.9.1989 and subsequent Notifications. The learned counsel also submitted that since the offences were covered in the Notification under Section 3 of the Act and since the CBI was authorized to investigate the offences no separate Notification under Section 5 of the Act was necessary. The learned Standing counsel also argued that there is no bar to give consent for investigation of a case subsequent to the registration of an FIR. 6. For ready reference, Sections 3 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 are reproduced below: 3. The learned Standing counsel also argued that there is no bar to give consent for investigation of a case subsequent to the registration of an FIR. 6. For ready reference, Sections 3 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 are reproduced below: 3. Offences to be investigated by Special Police Establishment- 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. 6. Consent of State Government to exercise of Powers and Jurisdiction.- 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 in [a State, not being a Union Territory or Railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.] 7. Since the Notification dated 30.6.2007 was the basis for CBI to submit charge sheets in a court at Guwahati it is also necessary to reproduce the contents of the Notification in extensio, which is reproduced below: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM POLITICAL (A) DEPARTMENT :: DISPUR ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur, 30th June, 2007 No. PLA 639/2006/20: In pursuance of the provisions of section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act. 25 of 1046) the Governor of Assam is pleased to accord the consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of the offences of alleged allotment of MBBS/PG seats against 14 persons of All India Quota (AIQ) vacancies in doubtful and fraudulent manner in the Medical Colleges of Assam and other offence/offences, attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with above mentioned offence and any other offence/offences committed in the course of same transaction arising out of the same facts. In view of the gravity of the case and apprehension of involvement of persons from and outside Assam, it is now proposed to handover the case to CBI for proper investigation and to bring to book all such persons as may be involved in the entire racket. By order and in the name of the Governor of Assam. (Rajiv Kumar Bora) Commissioner & Secy. to the Govt. of Assam. Home & Political Department. 8. By order and in the name of the Governor of Assam. (Rajiv Kumar Bora) Commissioner & Secy. to the Govt. of Assam. Home & Political Department. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M. Balakrishna Reddy (supra) is direct on the point wherein their Lordships have held that plain reading of Sections 3, 5 and 6 go to show that for exercise of jurisdiction by CBI in a State (other than Union Territory or Railway area) consent of the State Government is necessary. Their Lordships have further held that before invoking the provisions of the Delhi Act to exercise power and jurisdiction by the Special Police Establishment in any State, the following conditions must be fulfilled: 19. Plain reading of the above provisions goes to show that for exercise of jurisdiction by CBI in a State (other than Union Territory or Railway area), consent of the State Government is necessary. In other words, before the provisions of the Delhi Act are invoked to exercise power and jurisdiction by Special Police Establishment in any State, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) A notification must be issued by the Central Government specifying the offences to be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Section 3); (ii) An order must be passed by the Central Government extending the powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment to any State in respect of the offences specified under Section 3 (Section 5); and (iii) Consent of the State Government must be obtained for the exercise of powers by Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State (Section 6). 9. In the case of State of West Bengal (supra), the Apex Court has also observed as below: (22) Thus, although Section 5(1) empowers the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to any area in a State, but Section 6 imposes a restriction on the power of the Central Government to extend the jurisdiction of the said Establishment only with the consent of the State Government concerned. 10. The judgment of Rangku Dutta has arisen out of an offence under TADA. In the said Act also there was an identical condition that no offence under the Act shall be investigated without prior approval of the Superintendent of Police. 10. The judgment of Rangku Dutta has arisen out of an offence under TADA. In the said Act also there was an identical condition that no offence under the Act shall be investigated without prior approval of the Superintendent of Police. While quashing the FIR and the trial for want of approval of the Superintendent of Police Their Lordships observed that requirements of approval under Section 20 (A) (1) of the Act was mandatory and having not done so the entire trial was declared to be vitiated by law. In this way it is clear that even if the CBI is vested with the power to investigate a notified offence in a State prior consent by the State Govt. is necessary by way of a notification under Section 6 of the Act. However, the present case stands on a different footing. 11. There was no dispute by the learned counsels for the petitioners that offences for which charge-sheets have been submitted are covered by the Notification dated 7.9.1989 issued by the Government of India. In my considered opinion, this Notification is sufficient to draw an inference that the Central Government had extended the area of investigation by the CBI to the Acts and offences mentioned in the aforesaid notification for the State of Assam under Section 5 of the Act. 12. It is true that consent for CBI investigation was accorded after the case was registered by the CBI at Delhi and after the process of investigation had begun. It is equally true that the case at Guwahati was registered earlier. However, the charge-sheets submitted in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate at Guwahati is the crucial document to decide the criminal petitions. As noted earlier, except in one case, the charge-sheets were submitted against individual accused persons on 14.1.2009 and one charge sheet against the accused Dr. Md. Moidul Huda was submitted on 1.3.2010. The charge-sheets nowhere indicate that the investigation of the offences was taken up on the basis of the Guwahati FIR. There is no mention at all about Guwahati case in the CBI charge-sheet nor is there any reference of the Guwahati FIR and the consent of the State Government; purportedly given under Section 6 of the Act. The charge-sheets nowhere indicate that the investigation of the offences was taken up on the basis of the Guwahati FIR. There is no mention at all about Guwahati case in the CBI charge-sheet nor is there any reference of the Guwahati FIR and the consent of the State Government; purportedly given under Section 6 of the Act. Hence, it appears to me that the case was independently investigated on the basis of the FIR lodged by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India on 19.1.2007. The said FIR was registered on 21.6.2007. In view of this factual position I hold that when the State of Assam came to know about the registration of the case by the CBI it had formally closed Dispur PS Case No. 694 of 2006 by way of giving its approval/consent to the CBI on 30.6.2007 to probe the offence of fraud in allotment of MBBS/PG seats against 14 persons against All India Quota. In other words, after registration of the case by the CBI at Delhi the consent of the State Government became redundant and after filing of the charge sheet the Guwahati case can be treated as closed. Had the CBI investigated the Guwahati FIR the question of jurisdiction of CBI with or without prior consent from the State Government would have arisen. However, what I find is that the charge-sheets have been submitted on the basis of the investigation done against Govt. of India FIR. Hence, I hold that the consent letter of Assam Govt. is nothing but approval of merger of both FIRs. 13. Sri N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for one of the petitioners, namely Babul Ali, further submitted that on the basis of the charge sheet dated 14.1.2009 no case against the said accused is made out. It may be mentioned herein that the said accused has been charge-sheeted under Section 120-B r/w Section 420 and 471 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer has come to a conclusion that this accused had visited Health Department at Guwahati and enquired from the staff about the receipt of any allotment letter from the D.G.H.S., New Delhi in the name of accused Sri Khishal Ahmed Mazumder. The Investigating Officer has come to a conclusion that this accused had visited Health Department at Guwahati and enquired from the staff about the receipt of any allotment letter from the D.G.H.S., New Delhi in the name of accused Sri Khishal Ahmed Mazumder. Besides enquiring about the allotment letter from DGHS the petitioner Babul Ali had also accompanied Khishal Ahmed to the Regional Dental College at Guwahati projecting himself as the guardian of the said candidate on the date of his admission. 14. Sri Dutta learned counsel for the accused Babul Ali submitted that just enquiring about the receipt of the allotment letter from the DGHS, New Delhi in the capacity of guardian of a candidate cannot make out a case of conspiracy/cheating and using a forged document for admission purpose. I entirely agree with the learned counsel that if a local guardian simply accompanies an outside candidate to a college to facilitate him in getting his admission can not be an offence. However, in the present case, not only the allotment letter in the name of Khishal Ahmed Mazumder was found to be a forged document but the said candidate had also not appeared in the pre-medical test in the year 2005. 15. In Criminal Petition No. 464 of 2011, the accused Md. Babul Ali has made a statement that the father of co-accused, Khishal Ahmed Mazumder, namely Kamal Uddin Mazumder, was personally known to him and on his request the petitioner had readily volunteered to help the co-accused, Khishal Ahmed. On the basis of this defence plea it can be said that the petitioner has admitted the prosecution case that the accused had visited Regional Dental College at Guwahati alongwith the co-accused Khishal Ahmed, albeit under the cover of a local guardian. Strangely, the co-accused Khishal Ahmed Mazumder has no where stated in Criminal Petition No. 573 of 2011 that he had appeared in the pre-medical test in the year 2005 or qualified for admission in the B.D.S. course against All India Quota or that the co-accused Babul Ali had at all accompanied him to the college as a local guardian. In this way, the co-accused Khishal Ahmed is totally silent in his criminal petition that his father had requested Babul Ali to assist him in the admission process. In this way, the co-accused Khishal Ahmed is totally silent in his criminal petition that his father had requested Babul Ali to assist him in the admission process. Since, the story projected by the petitioner Babul Ali is not finding support from Khishal Ahmed I hold that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceeding against him. 16. For the reasons assigned herein above, I hold that there was no infirmity in filing charge-sheets against the petitioners by the CBI in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati. Consequently, all the criminal petitions/revision petitions are hereby dismissed. Stay orders stand vacated. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. All the petitioners are directed to appear in the trial court on 07.12.2012 and receive further directions. The Registry is also directed to forward a copy, of this judgment to the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati. Petition dismissed