JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners in this petition are the accused facing trial in a criminal case titled Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.K.Sharma and another before the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu [“the trial Court”] arising out of FIR No.RC0042014A0001 under Section 5(1)(e) of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 [“2006 Act”] read with Section 109-B RPC. They are aggrieved of and have challenged the presentation of criminal challan before the trial Court on the ground that Central Bureau of Investigation [“CBI”], a special police establishment constituted under Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 [“DSPE Act”] has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the 2006 Act unless a prior consent of the State Government in terms of Section 6 is obtained by the CBI. Reliance is placed on Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act to support this contention. 2. Per contra, the stand of the CBI and the State respondent is that there is general consent given by the State Government in terms of Section 6 for investigation of the offences punishable under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. Reliance is placed by the respondent on a communication of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir bearing No.S-253/57-PD dated 07.05.1958. The respondents submit that since there is general consent given by the State for investigation of offences punishable under the 2006 Act, as such, no fresh consent is required to be given by the State Government for investigating an offence which may have been incorporated in the 2006 Act by an amendment made subsequent to the issuance of communication dated 07.05.1958. 3. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record, following short but interesting question arises for adjudication:- “Whether the general consent given by the erstwhile Government of Jammu & Kashmir vide its communication dated 07.05.1958 for investigation of offences punishable under the Jammu & Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 is applicable and holds good for authorizing DSPE/CBI to investigate an offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the 2006 Act, which came to be incorporated in the year 1983 by Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption(Amendment) Act, 1983?. 4. 4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to set out Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, which read thus:- “2. Constitution and powers of special police establishment.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861), the Central Government may constitute a special police force to be called the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation in any Union territory of offences notified under section 3. (2) Subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, members of the said police establishment shall have throughout any Union territory, in relation to the investigation of such offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers of that Union territory have in connection with the investigation of offences committed therein. (3) 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, exercise in any Union territory any of the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in the area in which he is for the time being and when so exercising such powers shall, subject to any such orders as aforesaid, be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging functions of such an officer within the limits of his station. 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. 4. …………… 5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police establishment to other areas.—(1) The Central Government may by order extend to any area (including Railway areas) 4 [in 5 [a State, not being a Union territory]] the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under section 3. (2) When by an order under sub-section (1) the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject to any orders 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 the 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. 1 [(3) Where any such order under sub-section (1) is made relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.] [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.” 5. It is not in dispute that the Central Bureau of Investigation is a special police force constituted by the Central Government in the exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 2 of the DSPE Act, which exercises its jurisdiction for investigation, in any Union Territory, of offences notified under Section 3. As is apparent from a reading of Section 3, the Central Government is also empowered to specify by notification in the government gazette the offences or classes of offences which can be investigated by the CBI. Section 5 further provides and confers upon the Central Government power to extend by order the power and the jurisdiction of the members of DSPE/CBI to any area (including railway areas) in a State, not being a UT. Section 5 further provides and confers upon the Central Government power to extend by order the power and the jurisdiction of the members of DSPE/CBI to any area (including railway areas) in a State, not being a UT. However, Section 6 places a rider on the exercise of powers and jurisdiction by the DSPE/CBI in any area in a State, which is not a Union Territory or railway area unless there is prior consent obtained from the government of that State. 6. From a reading of Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 together, it is clearly borne out that Special Police Establishment/CBI is primarily constituted for investigation of various offences notified under Section 3 in any Union Territories of India. The Central Government is, however, empowered to extend the power and jurisdiction of DSPE/CBI to any area including railway area in a State but the exercise of this power and jurisdiction by the DSPE/CBI would be subject to the consent of the Government of that State. 7. It is not in dispute before me that in terms of Section 6 there is a general consent given by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir of the then State for investigation of various offences punishable under the repealed J&K State Ranbir Penal Code and offences punishable under different enactments including offences punishable under the 2006 Act. The general consent letter issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir dated 07.05.1958, the relevant extract whereof is set out below, would make the position abundantly clear. Relevant extract of communication dated 07.05.1958 is reproduced hereunder:- “I am directed to say that the Government of Jammu & Kashmir consents to the Delhi Special Police Establishment exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of Jammu & Kashmir for the investigation of the following offences specified in the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Nos.(a)7/9/56- AVD dated the 9th April, 1958 regarding (1) and (2) below and (b) 7/5/55-AVD dated 6-11-56 amended from time to time issued under Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), namely : (1)……………… (2) Offences punishable under the Jammu and Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (XIII of 2006); ………..” 8. On the basis of the consent given by the then State Government under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the Government of India in the exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (1) of Section 5 of the DSPE Act issued a notification bearing No.25/7/60-AVD dated 10th April, 1961, which was later on replaced by another notification bearing No.25/3/60- AVD I dated 1st April, 1964. As per the notification dated 01.04.1964 issued by the Government of India under Subsection (1) of Section 5 of the DSPE Act, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment were extended to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for investigation of offences specified in the Scheduled which included the offences punishable under the Jammu and Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (13 of 2006). For reference, the relevant extract of the notification dated 01.04.1964 is reproduced hereunder:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), and in supersession of the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs No.25/7/60-AVD, dated the 10th February 1961, the Central Government hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the investigation of offences specified in the Schedule annexed hereto. Schedule (a). ……………….. (b) Offence punishable under the Jammu and Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 (13 of 2006); ……………………………” 9. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is essentially edificed on the expression “as amended from time to time” used in the general consent letter dated 07.05.1958 given by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. He submits that the offences, which were punishable under 2006 Act as amended upto 07.05.1958 were alone subject to investigation by DSPE/CBI and the consent of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir was only restricted to such offences. He argues that the offences like the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e), which was inserted in 2006 Act by way of amendment in the year 1983, were not amenable to the investigative jurisdiction of the DSPE/CBI. 10. He argues that the offences like the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e), which was inserted in 2006 Act by way of amendment in the year 1983, were not amenable to the investigative jurisdiction of the DSPE/CBI. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that once there was consent for investigation of offences punishable under the 2006 Act, the same was to hold good for the offences subsequently inserted in the 2006 Act by way of amendments including Section 5(1)(e), which was inserted in the year 1983 by way of amendment. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and am of the considered view that answer to the question formulated in the wake of rival arguments of the parties, turns upon the interpretation of the general consent dated 07.05.1958 issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir in favour of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. 12. The relevant extract of the consent dated 07.05.1958 has already been reproduced herein above and a careful perusal whereof would clearly indicate that the then Government of Jammu & Kashmir conveyed its consent to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs for exercise of powers and jurisdiction of investigation of specified offences under different legislations. Apart from this, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir also consented to the DSPE/CBI exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of Jammu & Kashmir for investigation of offences punishable under the 2006 Act, as amended from time to time. The expression “as amended from time to time” in the context of offences punishable under the 2006 Act would not mean the amendments made in the 2006 Act upto the issuance of consent letter i.e. 07.05.1958, as is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Once there is a general consent by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir given to the DSPE/CBI to exercise powers and jurisdiction in the State of Jammu & Kashmir in respect of offences punishable under the 2006 Act, there is no requirement in law to give fresh consent as and when a new offence is created or some provision is modified by way of amendment in the 2006 Act. The word “as amended from time to time” rather has a wide amplitude and import and its meaning cannot be restricted to the amendments made in the 2006 Act only upto 07.05.1958 ignoring the amendments made subsequent thereto. 13. This issue has been considered and dealt with, though, not in much detail, by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Kumar Avinav v. Union of India and others, 2023 (1) Crimes J&K 455. The observations of the Bench which are relevant for our purpose are made in para-32, which for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- “32. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the offences like offences relating to conspiracies are not mentioned in the consent letter dated 7th May, 1958 and even the new offences created under the Jammu and Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 are not included therein. It is to be noted that subsequent to the consent letter dated 7th May, 1958, another consent letter has been issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir on 8th December, 1963, which was necessitated due to addition of certain more offences in the notification under Section 3 and order under Section 5 of the DSPE Act. Vide the said consent letter, the consent has been accorded to the issuance of such notification/order and in these notification/order even the abetments, attempts and conspiracies relating to all categories of offences mentioned in those notification/order have been incorporated. So far as the offences punishable under the Jammu and Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, all the offences are included in both the consent letters, therefore, all offences punishable under the said Act as amended from time to time would come within the purview of the consent letters. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any merit.” 14. That apart, the Central Government while issuing notification dated 01.04.1964 and extending the powers and jurisdiction of members of the DSPE to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the investigation of offences specified in the Schedule of the notification did not use the expression “in respect of J&K State Prevention of Corruption Act or other legislations as amended from time to time. Obviously, this was not done by the Central Government as it was clearly understood that once the powers and jurisdiction of DSPE have been extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir for investigation of offences under the entire Jammu & Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 on the basis of the consent given by the State Government, this is a foregone conclusion that DSPE was having powers and jurisdiction to investigate all the offences incorporated in the 2006 Act including those which may be inserted in the Act subsequently by way of legislative amendments. 15. It is the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case of offence under State Ranbir Penal Code, a fresh consent was accorded by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in terms of letter dated 18.12.1963 for offences which were notified later by the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the DSPE Act on 01.04.1964 and, therefore, in respect of offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the 2006 Act also a similar fresh consent by the State Government was sine qua non for conferring jurisdiction and powers on the CBI to investigate the offence. There is no substance in the argument and the same deserves to be rejected. This is so because as is apparent from a reading of the general consent letter dated 07.05.1958, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir had consented to the DSPE/CBI exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of Jammu & Kashmir for investigation of the specified offences of the State Ranbir Penal Code and not all the offences under the State Ranbir Penal Code and, therefore, if any new offence in the State Ranbir Penal Code was to be added in notification under Section 3 of the DSPE Act, a fresh consent from the Government of Jammu & Kashmir was required. This, however, is not so in the case of offences punishable under the 2006 Act. The State Government’s consent for investigation of offences punishable under the 2006 Act is already given vide communication dated 07.05.1958 and as has been explained herein above, once consent is given by the State Government for investigation by the offences punishable under the 2006 Act by the CBI in the territory of Jammu & Kashmir, such consent will hold good for any amendment carried in the 2006 Act and for the new offence(s), if any, created by such amendment(s). 16. To reiterate, the scope of expression “as amended from time to time” cannot be restricted only to the amendments carried out upto 7th May, 1958. The expression has a wider scope and amplitude and, therefore, is required to be construed accordingly. 17. For the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.