Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1387 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of Government Order in G.O.Ms. 181, dated 09.04.2020, passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential Gazette Notification, issued by the 2nd respondent in S.O. No. 46, dated 14.06.2020 - investigation of the complaint made by the 3rd respondent - misappropriation - conspiracy - breach of trust - Jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment namely CBI - HELD THAT:- The petitioners are the office bearers of Indian Red Cross Society. The third respondent seems to have given a complaint on 27.03.2020, addressed to the fifth respondent, making certain allegations with regard to the affairs of the Indian Red Cross Society. Pursuant to which, the said Government Order has been passed by the first respondent granting consent of the State Government for investigation to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This Government Order is challenged on the ground that the nature of allegations made in the complaint is beyond the scope of Section 3 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act and the Society in question is neither financed by the State or Central Government and it is a Society registered under Societies Act. In the present case on hand, A5 is the Deputy/Joint Secretary of Indian Red Cross Society, National Head Quarters, which is situated at India Red Cross Society at No. 1, Red Cross Road, New Delhi-110001, which is well within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely CBI, which is also the contention of the petitioner/A5. Hence, in the logical view, the G.O.(Ms) No. 181, dated 09.04.2020 itself is not mandatory. The attention of this Court was also invited to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. N.S. Ghaneswaran, reported in ([2013 (1) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT]), wherein it is held that CBI can register FIR as per the procedure traceable in CBI Manual 6.10.1. Hence, there is no illegality in CBI registering FIR. With regard to the first contention that the Indian Red Cross Society do not receive any grants from the Government is not correct. Indian Red Cross Society has been formed on the corpus available from public donation, as could be seen from the Act. Further, prime properties have been allotted by the Central Government as well as respective Governments for the Headquarters and its branches throughout India on concessional charge recognizing the public service rendered by the IRCS. This is the special privilege given to IRCS - Though IRCS state that it was only for the service rendered payments received and Red Cross Society not earned income is not proper, as could be seen from the ledger account of the said two projects. The Health and Family Welfare Department confirms the Grants-in-Aid given to IRCS, Tamil Nadu Branch. In this case, the petitioners herein are given privileged status and benefits on the office they held in IRCS. Thus, the position is clear that 'public duty' means, a duty in discharge of which, the State, the public of the community at large has an interest - the petitioners discharging the public duty is not in dispute. Hence, the case against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act can proceeded. As regards the second contention is concerned, issuance of G.O.(Ms) No. 181, dated 09.04.2020, for fraudulent activities by issuing Notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act is a colourable exercise, non-est and cannot be revisited - In this case, on the complaint of the third respondent, finding no involvement of State Government Officials and also finding seriousness of the offence and the involvement of Headquarters Officials and others, found it appropriate, for CBI to conduct investigation, hence the case was transferred. It is seen that Section 6 of the DSPE Act only stresses that consent has to be obtained only from the State. It is seen, that in this case, under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the CBI obtained consent. The second respondent issued a Notification under Section 5 of the DSPE Act on 12.06.2020. Thereafter, 17-A approval under the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained on 19.12.2020 from seventh respondent, thereafter, FIR registered on 28.12.2020. Consent obtained to avoid any future complication, in abundant caution. Nothing more. Locus of the third respondent - HELD THAT:- The questioning of locus, of the third respondent is not proper, since it is settled legal proposition that anybody can set the law in motion, except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary - the third respondent not only being Deputy Secretary of the Governor, even as a commoner, when an offence, coming to his knowledge as per Section 39 of Cr.P.C. has lodged the complaint. Thus, it is seen that the grant of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, is more in the nature of an administrative Order and does not require enormous rejigging, as the issue is whether to allow the investigation to be done by the CBI or not. This Court finds the contentions raised by the petitioners are unreasonable, not sustainable. Hence, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
|