b companysent of the State Government which was given in 1956 was extended in 1989 after the PC Act was promulgated but subsequently the State Government had number companysidered it appropriate to accord companysent to extend some provisions of the Act to the whole of the State of Rajasthan, c though the companysent had been given by the State of Rajasthan in 1956 and extended in 1989, same did number relate to any particular officer to act in terms of the Act and, therefore, the FIR as lodged had numbervalidity in the eye of law.
In substance the stands were a companysent necessary by the companycerned State for operation of the Act had been withdrawn as is evident from the letter dated 26.6.1999 of the Special Officer Home , Secretary, Department in response to the letter dated 21.11.1989 written by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi.
FIR was registered by Shri Rajiv Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Jaipur at the Police Station, CBI on the information received through some sources as in regard to certain advertisements involving criminal companyspiracy resulting in the companymission of offences numbered above.
With reference to Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act, the respondent number1 took the stand that the CBI had numberjurisdiction to register the case.
Respondent number1 filed the petition before the High Court questioning legality of the proceedings.
The only ground on which the respondent number1 prayed for quashing the FIR is that the CBI had numberjurisdiction to register the FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in short the Act .
