Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anil Kumar Jain vs Union Of India And Others on 2 May, 2025
AD-02-04
Ct No.16
02.05.2025
TN
WPA 7872 of 2025
Anil Kumar Jain
Vs.
Union of India and others
With
WPA 7875 of 2025
Anil Kumar Kedia
Vs.
Union of India and others
With
WPA 8043 of 2025
Prakash Chandra Agarwal
Vs.
Union of India and others
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya,
Mr. Dipak Dey,
Mr. Arpit Choudhury
....for the petitioner in
WPA 7872 of 2025
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Ld. Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Noelle Banerjee,
Mr. Dipak Dey
....for the petitioner in
WPA 7875 of 2025
Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Ld. Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Sanjay Banerjee,
Mr. Dipak Dey,
Ms. Noelle Banerjee
....for the petitioner in
WPA 8043 of 2025
Mr. Anirban Mitra,
Mr. Manabendra Bandyopadhyay
....for the CBI in
all the matters
2
Mr. Mukul Lahiri, Ld. Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Anirban Pramanick
....for the respondent no.4 (SBI) in
all the matters
Ms. Priyanka Tibrewal,
Ms. Garima Raijada
….for the UOI in
all the matters
1. The present challenge has been preferred against the
initiation and continuation of investigation against
the petitioners in all these matters in connection with
FIR No. RCBSK2022E0001 dated September 06,
2022 under Sections 120B/420/477A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
commencement of investigation in the proceeding
pending before the court of the learned Special Judge
(CBI-I), Bhubaneswar as RC Case No. 01(E) of 2022
and for consequential reliefs.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
contends that the present investigation is going on at
the behest of the CBI (Central Bureau of
Investigation) in contravention of the provisions of
Section 5(2), read in conjunction with Section 6, of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for
short “the 1946 Act”). It is pointed out that in terms
of Section 6 of the said Act, nothing contained in
Section 5 thereof shall be deemed to enable any
member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
3
(DSPE) to use 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.
3. On the other hand, Section 5 stipulates that the
Central Government may by order extend to any area
(including Railway areas) in a State, not being a
Union Territory, the powers and jurisdiction of
members of the DSPE for the investigation of any
offences or classes of offences specified in a
notification under Section 3 of the said Act.
4. Sub-Section (3) of Section 5, it is contended, provides
that where any such order under sub-section (1) is
made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice
to the provisions of sub-section (2), any member of
the DSPE, 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.
5. Learned senior counsel submits that vide Notification
No. 450/HS/PA/18 dated November 16, 2018, the
Government of West Bengal withdrew its consent as
accorded within the contemplation of Section 6 of the
1946 Act to all the members of the DSPE to exercise
4
the powers and jurisdiction under the 1946 Act in
the State of West Bengal.
6. Learned senior counsel points out that the genesis of
the impugned FIR (First Information Report) was a
complaint lodged by the respondent no.4, the Deputy
General Manager of the State Bank of India, SAMV-I,
Kolkata.
7. Thus, since the complaint was lodged in Kolkata
pertaining to an offence allegedly committed in
Kolkata, which falls within the State of West Bengal,
in the teeth of the withdrawal of such consent under
Section 6 of the 1946 Act by the said State, the entire
investigation and initiation of proceedings pursuant
to such complaint within the State of West Bengal by
the CBI is bad in law.
8. Learned senior counsel next contends that, not
stopping there, the CBI has been continuing the
investigation, which borders on the egregious,
amounting to a colourable exercise of its so-called
powers. It is contended that in terms of Section 5(2)
of the 1946 Act, the Investigating Officer is deemed to
be an Officer-in-Charge of a police station
discharging the functions of such an officer within
the limits of his station.
9. By placing reliance on Sections 154, 156 and 157 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is
applicable in view of the date of the lodging of the
5
complaint, learned senior counsel argues that none
of the said provisions have been complied with.
10. With special reference to Section 157(1), it is
contended that if, from information received or
otherwise, an Officer-in-Charge of a police station
has reason to suspect the commission of an offence
which he is empowered under Section 156 to
investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the
same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed
in person or shall depute one of his subordinate
officers, not below the rank as specified therein, to
proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and
circumstances of the case and take necessary
measures.
11. Under Section 156(1) of the Code, any Officer-in-
Charge of a police station may, without the order of a
Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case in which
a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within
the limits of such station would have power to inquire
into or try under the provisions of Chapter-XIII.
12. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners that in stark contravention of the
same, although the complaint was lodged and the
FIR registered in the State of West Bengal, the report
was filed, surprisingly, before the court of the Special
Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar.
6
13. It is, thus, argued as the second prong of attack in
the present writ petitions that even if it were to be
construed that the CBI had the jurisdiction to
conduct the investigation, the status of the
Investigating Officer would be that of a member of the
local police force and, as such, the provisions of
Sections 154 to 157 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure would apply. Since there has also been
violation of the said provisions as indicated above, it
is argued that the entire procedure of investigation is
vitiated and ought to be set aside/stayed.
14. It is further pointed out by learned senior counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners in the respective
cases that the complaint was lodged in respect of an
alleged offence which was purportedly committed
within the State of West Bengal and, as such, the
scope of any investigation being carried out beyond
the jurisdictional court, in a different State (in this
case Odisha) is also de hors the law.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI contends,
while opposing the arguments of the petitioners, that
in the present case, search warrant has also been
issued in terms of the FIR. That apart, pointing to
the relevant portion of the FIR annexed at page-70 of
the present writ petitions, it is pointed out that the
place of occurrence has been mentioned as
Jharsuguda Unit of the concerned company at
7
Odisha and two other places at West Bengal and one
place at Andhra Pradesh. Hence, since a part of the
cause of action also pertains to Odisha, it is
submitted that continuance of the investigation in
Odisha cannot be prevented by this court.
16. That apart, it is argued that since the offence is of a
multifarious nature, covering several States, the bar
under Section 6 of the 1946 Act, in view of the
withdrawal of consent by the State of West Bengal, is
not applicable in terms in the present case.
17. It is further pointed out that the second accused in
the present case has his address in Odisha and that
the office of the company-in-question, whose officers
have been implicated, is also situated in the State of
Odisha.
18. Apart from the above contentions, the CBI challenges
the territorial jurisdiction of this court to take up the
matters since in effect, it is contended, the present
challenge has been preferred against an ongoing
investigation by the CBI Court in the State of Odisha
and, as such, the challenge under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India ought to have been preferred
before the Odisha High Court.
19. It is further argued that in terms of a Circular issued
by the CBI on October 03, 2020, the jurisdiction of
the respective CBI Branches and Units have been
delineated. The present investigation, it is
8
contended, is going on in terms of the said
delineation and cannot be said to be vitiated in law in
any manner.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI places
reliance on an unreported judgment of a coordinate
Bench of this court, in the matter of CRR 2634 of
2023 [M/s. Fairdeal Supplies Limited & Ors. vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Anr.], in
support of the contention that in a similar factual
backdrop, the learned Single Judge, in the said case,
had refused to stop the transfer the case from the
State of West Bengal to a different State (in the said
case Gujarat). It was observed there, on the basis of
the Circular dated October 03, 2020 with regard to
the jurisdiction of the CBI Branches, that the EOB,
Kolkata Branch has got its jurisdiction throughout
India and the complaint was registered before the
Court of Special Judge, CBI, Bhadra, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat. It was further held that the tone and tenor
of the revisional application before the said Bench
was against the transfer of the case from Calcutta to
Ahmedabad, though it was lodged in compliance with
the standing order issued by the CBI. On such
ground, the learned Judge refused to transfer such
case.
21. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the de
facto complainant argues that the writ petitions are
9
bad for non-joinder of the State Bank of India and
the other banks which were a part of the consortium,
who had in effect, through the Deputy General
Manager of the State Bank of India, acting as an
agent of the State Bank, lodged the complaint.
22. Furthermore, it is added by learned senior counsel
for the de facto complainant that prayer (c) made in
the writ petitions, asking for a Writ of Certiorari
regarding the records of the Odisha case, is not
maintainable in the eye of law.
23. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the materials before the court, I find a
strong prima facie case for hearing the writ petitions
on merits having been made out.
24. Insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the CBI is
concerned, at the outset it may be noted that the
internal Circular/Order dated October 03, 2020
issued by the Policy Division of the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), that too, merely for the purpose
of laying down the organization and jurisdiction of its
respective branches and units, cannot override the
law as it stands.
25. At best, the said order is binding on the officers of
the CBI internally and does not hit at the root of the
jurisdiction of the CBI, nor does it confer any such
jurisdiction on the CBI, in the event the CBI is not
vested with such powers otherwise in law.
10
26. The petitioners have made out a strong prima facie
case firstly on the lack of jurisdiction of the CBI to
carry on investigation within the State of West Bengal
and/or and the CBI having assumed jurisdiction to
initiate such investigation in respect of an offence
allegedly committed in the State of West Bengal.
27. It is an admitted position that the consent granted
under Section 6 of the 1946 Act had been withdrawn
by the State of West Bengal long prior to the lodging
of the complaint, on November 16, 2018, by a
Gazette Notification.
28. The question which arises for the purpose of
ascertaining jurisdiction is the situs of the alleged
offence.
29. I find from the complaint lodged by the Deputy
General Manager of the State Bank of India, which is
annexed to the writ petitions, that as per the
allegation of the said complainant, the offence took
place in respect of the account of various associates,
prior to the merger of the concerned company, being
maintained at the Industrial Financial Branch of the
said bank at Kolkata and its Commercial Branch at
Kolkata. It is categorically alleged under the second
bullet point in serial no.4 of the complaint that the
fraud alleged had taken place at both the aforesaid
branches, from where the accused had diverted the
funds and manipulated books of accounts with an
11
objective to defraud the bank and to gain unlawfully
at the cost of the bank’s funds.
30. The rest of the complaint are based on the first two
paragraphs, which center around an alleged offence
committed in respect of the two Branches of the State
Bank of India mentioned therein, both of which are
located in Kolkata, within the State of West Bengal.
31. In the First Information Report lodged in pursuance
of the said complaint, however, in paragraph no.5,
the place of occurrence was, all on a sudden,
mentioned as Jharsuguda Unit of the company
concerned and two other places at West Bengal and
one place at Andhra Pradesh. However, if one enters
into the origin of the FIR, it is found in a separate
sheet attached to the FIR, annexed at page-74 of the
present writ petitions, that the genesis of the FIR was
solely the complaint lodged by the Deputy General
Manager, State Bank of India, SAMB-1, Kolkata
having address at Shakespeare Sarani in Kolkata.
32. Thus, even ex facie, the place of occurrence
mentioned in the FIR itself does not tally with the
complaint on the basis of which the same was
lodged. I still could have understood if in the
appropriate column, the genesis of the FIR was
mentioned to be several complaints lodged in
different States. However, it is found from the
separate sheet attached to the FIR (which is an
12
integral part of the FIR) that it is based totally and
exclusively on the complaint lodged by the Deputy
General Manger of the SBI branch as indicated
above.
33. Since from the complaint itself it is evident that the
entire allegations of offence relate to the city of
Kolkata within the State of West Bengal, I have to
look at the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 through
the focal lens of the State of West Bengal. As
indicated above, since the consent of exercise of
powers by the CBI under Section 6 had been
withdrawn by the State of West Bengal long back, I
find that the CBI prima facie did not have any
jurisdiction to initiate any investigation or exercise its
powers and functions under the 1946 Act, since it
derives its very authority to initiate such action from
Section 5 of the 1946 Act, which is circumscribed by
Section 6 of the said Act.
34. Even on the second aspect of the matter, proceeding
on the hypothetical premise that CBI did have
jurisdiction to initiate the investigation, the
investigating officer of the CBI, within the
contemplation of Section 5(2) of the 1946 Act, has to
operate and exercise powers as an Officer-in-charge
of a police station in the area of offence and when so
exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an
Officer-in-charge of a police station discharging the
13
functions of such an officer within the limits of his
station. Read in conjunction with Sections 154 to
157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at least prima
facie this court cannot but come to the conclusion
that the report being lodged with Special CBI Court
in Bhubaneswar at Odisha in pursuance of a
complaint lodged and an FIR registered in Kolkata
within the State of West Bengal is in direct
contravention of the entire scheme and eco-system
provided in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
35. Thus, seen from such perspective as well, I find a
strong prima facie and arguable case having been
made out by the petitioners.
36. Coming to the issue of territorial jurisdiction, it is not
the exercise of the powers by the Special Court, CBI
in Odisha which forms the cause of action of the
present writ petitions. Rather, a challenge has been
thrown against the very genesis of such investigation,
which is the complaint, giving rise to an FIR. Since
the complaint was lodged and the FIR was registered
within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, in view
of the nature of the challenge in the writ petitions, I
am of the opinion that this court has territorial
jurisdiction to take up the matter.
37. That apart, the de facto complainant has raised an
issue as to whether the non-impleadment of the State
14
Bank of India in its own capacity and other
consortium banks vitiates the filing of the writ
petitions. With utmost respect to the erudition of
learned senior counsel for the de facto complainant, I
disagree with such proposition since the complaint
itself does not disclose the complainant acting as the
representative of his bank and/or any consortium of
banks as such, nor does the complaint refer to any
antecedent events connecting the alleged offence with
any consortium bank or disclose that the
complainant was authorized to lodge the complaint
solely and exclusively in the capacity of an agent of
his bank.
38. Moreover, I have my doubts as to how far a
complainant can be heard on the legality and veracity
of a First Information Report, since the role of a de
facto complainant, for the present purpose, ends with
lodging of the complaint. The domino effect which
happens thereafter on the basis of such complaint is
rather not the look-out of the complainant. In any
event, the actual complainant has been impleaded in
the writ petitions. As such, the point of non-
impleadment cannot be entertained.
39. Insofar as the reliance of the CBI on its Circular
dated October 03, 2020 is concerned, as held earlier,
the same cannot be a justification for prima facie
flouting the law governing the subject or operate to
15
confer jurisdiction on the CBI where the law
precludes the same.
40. Coming next to the judgment of the coordinate Bench
which has been cited before this court, I find that the
conspectus of the said challenge was different from
the present. Whereas in the present case, the very
genesis and initiation of proceedings and
investigation by the CBI have been assailed, in the
said case, the challenge there was merely to the
transfer of a case from Kolkata to Ahmedabad. In
such limited context, the learned Single Judge had
taken into consideration the Circular of the CBI
dated October 03, 2020. However, it is evident from
the cited judgment itself that the points raised in the
present case, being the jurisdictional error in the
light of Sections 5 and 6 of the 1946 Act read with
Sections 154 to 157 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, were neither raised nor adjudicated before
the said court.
41. Hence, with utmost respect, the cited judgment
cannot be a precedent on the issues which have now
arisen before this court and, as such, is not binding
insofar as the present case is concerned.
42. In such view of the matter, as already held above, the
petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case
for hearing of the writ petitions on merits. Unless the
proceedings initiated on the basis of the FIR which
16
has been assailed herein are stayed, there is every
possibility that the writ petitions will become
infructuous before they are finally heard on merits.
43. A word of caution here: this court is not per se
looking into the jurisdiction of the CBI Court in
Odisha in isolation but is examining a challenge
against the very initiation of the proceedings, of
which the report filed before the Odisha Special CBI
Court and the other actions taken by the CBI are
merely off-shoots and consequences.
44. This court is also not unmindful of the fact that till
date, no charge sheet has been filed and the case is
still at the inchoate stage of investigation by the CBI,
the very basis of which has been challenged before
this court. Thus, it cannot be said that any court in
Odisha or elsewhere is in seisin of the same as yet.
Hence, the grant of an interim order in connection
with the present writ petitions shall not tantamount
to usurping the jurisdiction of the CBI Court
otherwise than in the context of the FIR which is the
origin of the same.
45. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, there
shall be stay of all further action taken on the basis
of and in continuation of the investigation initiated in
connection with FIR No. RCBSK2022E0001 dated
September 06, 2022 under the Sections mentioned
17
therein till July 31, 2025 or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
46. The respondents shall file their respective affidavits-
in-opposition to the writ petitions within June 13,
2025; reply/replies thereto, if any, shall be filed by
June 27, 2025.
47. The writ petitions shall next be listed on July 04,
2025 for hearing.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)