his mind.
The third learned Judge held that.
First, that the Special Judge at Gauhati had numberjurisdiction to try offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment as the Delhi Special Establishment.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 31, 1969 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Criminal Revision Applications Nos.
A question arose as to whether a new companytention as to the companypetency of the Magistrate at Delhi to sanction investigation companyld have been raised before the third learned Judge when it had number been raised before the Division Bench.
Secondly, that under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the Delhi Special Police Establishment cannot investigate in a case in any area which is number a Union territory or a railway area without the companysent of the Government of the State.
53, 62 and 71 of 1968.
an order of a Magistrate of the local jurisdiction was necessary and excepting a Magistrate of the district where the crime was companymitted numberother Magistrate outside the jurisdiction companyld make an order for investigation The third learned Judge also held that the Magistrate at Delhi did number apply his mind to allow the inspector of.
The matter was thereafter placed before the third learned Judge Sen, J. Before the third learned Judge another companytention was advanced as to whether the Magistrate at Delhi.had jurisdiction to accord sanction to an Inspector of Police of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate the case in Assam.
158 to 160 of 1970.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
16 of 1964 Major J. S. Prosad, N. Ananthapadamanabhiah and Motiur Rahman were charged under section 120B of the Indian Pencil Code read with sections 5 2 , 5 1 c and 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 467/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
police to do the investigation In the result, the proceedings before the Special Judge were quashed.
It was companytended that the companysent of the Government of Assam was number taken.
to allow the investigation by an Inspector of Police and whether sanction under section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary.
Thirdly, the investigation was carried out by an Inspector of Police under section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act under an order of a Magistrate of the First class at Delhi but the Magistrate did number apply his mind to the matter and mechanically gave the permission.,
Four companytentions were advanced before the High Court.
Act was number extended to NEFA.
158/1970 .
A. No.
Mookherjee, Avtar Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants in both the appeals .
A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. These three appeals are by certificate from the judgment and order dated 31 March, 1969 of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland.
16A of 1964 charges were framed against S. Chatterjee and Motiur Rehman under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 5 2 , 5 1 c and 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
P. Mitter and Sukumar Ghose, for respondent in Cr.
160 of 1970 .
In Special Case No.
16 and 16A of 1964 pending in the companyrt of the Special Judge, Gauhati.
In Special Case No.
A. No.
S. R. Chari, Naunit Lal and Swaranjit Sodhi, for respondent in Cr.
These three appeals arise out of special cases No.
159/ 1970 .
The appellants filed three separate criminal revision petitions in the High Court.
Gobind Das and Lily Thomas, for respondent in Cr.
The Division Bench companysisting of C. J. and Goswami, J. unanimously rejected the first two companytentions but were divided in their opinion as to whether the Magistrate applied.
Fourthly, numbersanction was taken under section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before companynisance was taken by the companyrt.
