Supreme Court of India
The State, Central Bureau Of … vs A Satish Kumar on 2 January, 2025
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T. Ravikumar
2025 INSC 11
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023)
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation.
…Appellant(s)
Versus
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
…Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 10038 of 2023)
JUDGMENT
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. The self-same appellant, namely, the Central
Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘the CBI’) calls in
question the common judgment dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.
Nos.26990 of 2021 and 5441 of 2022 passed by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. Writ Petition No.26990 of 2021
was filed by the first respondent in the former appeal and
Signature Not Verified
Writ Petition No.5441 of 2022 was filed by the first
respondent in the latter appeal. As observed by the High
Digitally signed by Dr.
Naveen Rawal
Date: 2025.01.02
16:40:40 IST
Reason:
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 1 of 32
Court in the impugned common judgment, common
question(s) of law arose for consideration in both the
cases in identical circumstances and the High Court took
W.P. No.26990 of 2022 as the lead case. Consequent to
the consideration of the legal and factual position, the
High Court allowed the said Writ Petition and for the
same reasoning allowed W.P. No.5441 of 2022 as per the
impugned common judgment.
2. Before dealing with the precise question(s) of law
involved in the captioned appeals, it is appropriate to
refer, succinctly, to the factual background that
ultimately led to the filing of the Writ Petitions and their
culmination in the impugned common judgment, as
under:-
FIR No.10 (A)/2017 was registered for offences
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(for short, ‘the PC Act’) against the first respondent in
Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2024 while he was working as
Superintendent, Central Excise, Nandyal, (Kurnool),
District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The allegation
was that he demanded and accepted an illegal
gratification of ₹10,000/- from the original complainant,
Sri. Arif, who was a contractor, on 09.05.2017 for issuanceSLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 2 of 32
of licence surrender certificate qua Excise Registration
Certificate No. AHC PC 1141 KEM 001.
3. In the latter appeal, against the first respondent
therein, FIR No.RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD was registered
under Section 7 of the PC Act. The allegation was that
while working as Accounts Assistant in the office of
Senior Divisional Financial Manager, Guntakal, by
abusing his office as public servant he demanded and
obtained ₹15,000/- as illegal gratification from the
original complainant therein, Sri. C. Dorrai Rajulu Naidu
on 20.11.2017 for doing official favour of processing
contract bills for the months of July, 2017 to September,
2017 and also previously sanctioned bills for the month
of March to May, 2017 and June, 2017. In both the cases,
after completion of investigation, chargesheets were
filed before the Court of Principal, Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Hyderabad. In the case of former appeal, it was
so filed on 28.12.2017 and in the latter case it was so filed
on 29.03.2018. The Court took cognizance, in the former
case, on 16.07.2018 and took on it file as CC No.2/2018
and in the latter case, on taking cognizance it was taken
on file as CC No.6/2018 on 03.08.2018. On 28.03.2019,
the CBI, policy division order, redefining the territorial
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 3 of 32
jurisdiction of CBI, ACB, Hyderabad and
Vishakhapatnam branches was issued. On 03.09.2019,
the High Court of Telangana vide ROC No.334/E-1/2008
issued a notification regarding the jurisdiction of four
Rayalaseema Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh,
namely, Kurnool, Kadappa, Chittoor and Ananthapur and
for their inclusion in the jurisdiction of CBI Courts
Vishakhapatnam by deleting the same from the
jurisdiction of CBI Courts at Hyderabad.
4. Earlier, as per the Andhra Pradesh Re-
Organisation Act, 2014 (for short, ‘the A.P. Re-
Organisation Act’), w.e.f. 02.06.2014, the State of Andhra
Pradesh was bifurcated geographically into two States
namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of
Telangana.
Indisputably, despite the birth of two States by
such bifurcation the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
continued to be the common High Court for States i.e.,
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana till December, 2018.
As relates the causative incident which led to the
registration of the FIR No.10(A)/2017 against the first
respondent in the former appeal, it occurred within the
limits of Kurnool District and that of FIR
No.RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD it occurred within the limits
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 4 of 32
of Ananthapur, both were in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Even after the bifurcation those districts remained with
the State of Andhra Pradesh. As noticed earlier, both the
aforesaid FIRs were registered for offences under
Section 7 of the PC Act at Hyderabad in Telangana State
by the CBI, ACB Hyderabad and on completion of
investigation the CBI filed final reports before the Court
of Principal, Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad and
that Court took cognizance of offences based on such
final reports and took them on file and assigned CC
Nos.2/2018 and 6/2018 respectively. As noted earlier,
ROC Nos.334/E-1/2008 dated 03.09.2019 was issued by
the High Court of Telangana, on its administrative side,
directing to transfer the CBI cases pertaining to the
districts of Kurnool, Kadappa, Chittoor and Ananthapur
of Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh to the Court of
Special Judge for CBI cases at Vishakhapatnam.
Accordingly, those cases were transferred and re-
numbered respectively as CC No.35/2020 and CC
No.37/2020. Still, later as per GOMS No.9 & 10 Law (LA,
LA & J-Home Court A) Department dated 09.01.2020, IInd
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vishakhapatnam was
shifted from Vishakhapatnam to Kurnool. Consequently,
CC No.35/2020 was re-numbered as CC No.13 of 2022
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 5 of 32
and CC No.37/2020 was re-numbered as CC No.15 of
2022, on the files of the Court of Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Kurnool. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that
the respective first respondent in the captioned appeals
who were the respective accused in CC No.13 of 2022
and CC No.15/2022 moved the aforementioned Writ
Petitions which culminated in the impugned common
judgment dated 13.04.2023.
5. Much prior to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra
Pradesh into two States, as above, the Government of
erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh vide order
dated 14.05.1990, gave general consent for investigation
by the CBI in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. Going
by the said notification, general consent was accorded
under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946 (for short, ‘the DSPE Act’) to exercise powers
and jurisdiction under the said Act in the entire State of
Andhra Pradesh for investigation of the offences
mentioned thereunder. We will dilate on its impact and
effect a little later.
6. Writ Petition No.26990 of 2021 was filed by the first
respondent in the former appeal mainly seeking to issue
a writ order or direction, more particularly, one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 6 of 32
conducting trial in CC No.35 of 2020 (later got the
number of the case as CC No.13/2022), pending on the
files of the Court of IInd Additional Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Vishakhapatnam as illegal and to quash the same,
raising various grounds. It was contended that the A.P.
Re-Organisation Act was passed in 2014 and on
02.06.2014 viz., the appointed day, two States were
created by bifurcating the erstwhile State of Andhra
Pradesh, namely, State of Andhra Pradesh and the State
of Telangana and, in the said circumstances, for the CBI
to register and investigate FIR Nos.10(A)/2017 and
RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD within the limits of the newly
formed State of Andhra Pradesh, permission from the
Government of Andra Pradesh was necessary as per the
provisions of the ‘DSPE Act’. It was further contended
that the subject FIRs were registered by the CBI, ACB,
Hyderabad in Telangana whereas the alleged offence in
those FIRs had taken place in Kurnool and Ananthapur
districts which were and still, within the State of Andhra
Pradesh, and further that on the dates of registration of
those FIRs there was no express permission as required
under Section 6 of the DSPE Act to register them and also
to investigate the same. Based on such grounds, it was
contended that the entire investigation and the filing of
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 7 of 32
the charge sheet are vitiated and further that the Court at
Hyderabad lacks jurisdiction to entertain the cases.
Furthermore, it was contended that under the PC Act, a
specific notification was to be issued either by the State
or by the Central Government designating a Judge to try
offences thereunder and only the Special Judge could try
offences under the PC Act cases. It was also the
contention of the Writ Petitioner/the first respondent that
till December 2017, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
did not accord consent for prosecution of Central
Government servants under the provisions of the PC Act
and therefore, Special Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad
could not have entertained the aforesaid case against
him. So also, for the same reasons neither CBI Court nor
the High Court had jurisdiction to transfer the cases to
the CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam. The subsequent events
could not cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction and as
such, the entire proceedings got vitiated, it was further
submitted.
7. Obviously, the same contentions, with necessary
factual changes, were made on behalf of the first
respondent in the latter appeal, who was the accused in
CC No.15/2022, in Writ Petition No.5441 of 2022 to
support the prayer to quash CC No.15/2022 and all
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 8 of 32
further proceedings thereof. The appellant herein who
was one of the respondents therein, strongly resisted the
contentions regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction and
contended that the proceedings did not get vitiated as
contended by the Writ Petitioners.
8. A scrutiny of the impugned judgment would reveal
that the High Court upon reviewing the sequence of
events held that the transfer of cases from the Additional
CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam to Kurnool is not per se
wrong and, in fact, it is in accordance with law. We may
hasten to add here that the said finding is not under
challenge before us, certainly, at the instance of the first
respondent in the captioned appeals and hence, the
same need not be considered any further. But then, even
after holding thus, the High Court went on to consider the
questions whether the lack of consent as also the lack of
notification for a Special Court under the PC Act would
go into the root of the matter and thereby vitiate the
proceedings. Both the questions were answered in the
affirmative and accordingly WP No.26990 of 2021 as also
WP No.5441/2022 were allowed. Resultantly, the
registration of the respective FIR and filing of the
chargesheets were held as vitiated for the absence of
consent from the State of Telangana to the CBI, to register
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 9 of 32
the FIRs and conduct investigation. It is aggrieved by
the quashment of such proceedings viz., registration of
FIR, filing of charge sheet and all further proceedings
involved in CC No.13 of 2022 and CC No.37 of 2020 (now
CC No.15/2022) as per the impugned common judgment
that the appellant herein preferred the captioned
appeals.
9. Heard Shri M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the appellant and the learned counsel for the
respondents.
10. The learned Additional Solicitor General would
contend that the impugned common judgment of the
High Court is unsustainable and liable to be interfered
with, for its failure to take into consideration various
crucial factors in their true perspective. It is, inter alia,
contended that Circular Memo No.13665/ SR/2014 dated
26.05.2014 was not properly considered and
appreciated appropriately. It is submitted that the
Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 would clarify the
position that all ‘laws’ applicable to the undivided State
of Andhra Pradesh as on 01.06.2014 would continue to
apply to the newly created States due to bifurcation,
namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014, despite the bifurcation of the
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 10 of 32
erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till altered, repealed
or amended. It is also the contention that even after
bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the S.P., CBI, Hyderabad
and office of S.P. CBI Hyderabad were not deprived of
their identity as ‘Special Police Force’ and to drive home
the point the learned Additional Solicitor General, relied
on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and
Others v. Balbir Singh & Ors.1 It is also contended that
the High Court had failed to appreciate the fact that as on
the date of the registration of the FIR involved in the
captioned appeals there was consent to CBI in terms of
the provisions of the Section 6 of the DSPE Act. It is
furthermore contended that the High Court had gone
wrong in holding that G.O.M.S. Nos.158 dated
28.11.2014, 67 dated 01.06.2016, No.168 dated
05.12.2017 and dated 03.08.2018 extending the general
consent as orders pertaining to the State of Andhra
Pradesh only.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent in the appeals stoutly resisted the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and
submitted that the entire sequence of events including
1
(1976) 3 SCC 242; 1975 INSC 238
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 11 of 32
the trapping, registration of the FIRs, filing of the
chargesheets and taking cognizance etc. were
considered by the High Court ultimately to arrive at the
conclusion that the registration of the FIRs as also filing
of the chargesheets in the cases on hand, are vitiated by
law. It is further submitted that since such irregularities
would go into the root of the matter denude jurisdiction.
Hence, the High Court was right in quashing the
respective FIRs and all further proceedings in pursuance
thereof.
12. Before considering the rival contentions to
examine their tenability it is only appropriate to scan the
impugned judgment to find out the reasons specifically
assigned by the High Court in coming to the conclusion
that the registration of the FIR and the filing of the
chargesheet in the cases on hand are vitiated in law.
Such a consideration would reveal that the High Court
considered the questions as to whether CBI had power
to register the FIRs and investigate offences qua
respondent No.1 in the appeals, whether the FIR for
offences under the PC Act could be registered in
Hyderabad in the State of Telangana when the offences
alleged to have been committed at places within the
State of Andhra Pradesh and for that reason whether the
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 12 of 32
CBI Court in the State of Telangana got jurisdiction to try
the offence under the PC Act in respect of offences
allegedly committed at places falling within the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
13. Obviously, the High Court interpreted Section 4 of
the PC Act and the decision of this Court in C.B.I.,
A.H.D., Patna v. Braj Bhushan Prasad2, and such other
cases to come to the conclusion that the Court of the
Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad got no
jurisdiction to try the offences involved in the cases on
hand under the provisions of the PC Act. The High Court
has also arrived at the conclusion that there was no
consent required in terms of the provisions under
Section 6 of the DSPE Act to register and investigate the
offences against the Central Government employees on
the date of registration of the FIR in the cases on hand.
14. The impugned judgment would reveal that the
High Court firstly considered the power of the CBI sans
consent of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to register
FIR on the date(s) of registration of the subject FIRs and
further to investigate them. After referring to Section 5
and 6 of the DSPE Act, it was held that they would make
2
(2001) 9 SCC 432; 2001 INSC 485
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 13 of 32
it clear that though under Section 5 the Central
Government could extend the area of operation of the
said Act in a State it would be subject to the consent of
the State Government concerned. To fortify the said
view the High Court referred to and relied on the
decision of this Court in Fertico Marketing and
Investment Private Limited and Ors. v. Central Bureau
of Investigation and Anr.3 The High Court also took note
of the fact that in the cases on hand the causative incident
that led to the registration of the FIRs occurred in
districts, Kurnool and Anantpur respectively, within the
State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court has also taken note
of the fact that investigation was conducted by the CBI
and chargesheets were submitted thereafter in the
Special Court for CBI Cases at Hyderabad and
thereafter, that Court took cognizance of the offence(s).
Whether such actions are legal or of the nature which
would go into the root of the matter to vitiate the
proceedings, were considered taking note of various
factors and facts. The High Court considered the facts
that the A.P. Reorganisation Act came into force on
02.06.2014 and thereafter, general consent was given
3
(2021) 2 SCC 525; 2020 INSC 645
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 14 of 32
only by the State of Andhra Pradesh as per GOMS No.158
dated 28.11.2014 and then by GOMS No.67 dated
01.06.2016 and yet again by GOMS No.184 dated
05.12.2017 and 109 dated 03.08.2018 to come to the
conclusion that as on the date(s) of registration of the
subject FIRs there was no power vested with the CBI,
ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana to register crime in
regard to the offence taken place in Kurnool as also in
Anantapur in the State of Andhra Pradesh and also to
conduct investigation thereon. It is also evident that the
High Court arrived at the conclusion that GOMS 88 dated
07.08.2012 by which CBI Court at Hyderabad was given
the power to exercise jurisdiction over the districts in
Telangana as also Rayalaseema Districts of Andhra
Pradesh namely, Chittoor, Ananthapur, Kadappa and
Kurnool ceased to be in force after the State
Reorganisation Act came into force on 02.06.2014 and
therefore, the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Hyderabad ceased to have jurisdiction to deal with the
cases under the PC Act in respect of the aforementioned
four districts falling within the Rayalaseema regions of
State of Andhra Pradesh. It was also held that in such
circumstances the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Hyderabad could not have entertained the cases after
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 15 of 32
02.06.2014 as the required notification under the PC Act
was not issued subsequent to 02.06.2014, the appointed
day under the A.P. Reorganisation Act.
15. Having gone through the reasons that made the
High Court to come to such conclusions as mentioned
and to quash the subject FIRs and the subsequent
proceedings thereon, we will consider the contentions
raised to mount attack against the same. As noted
hereinbefore, the core contention of the appellant is that
the High Court had failed to consider Circular Memo
No.13665/SR/2014 dated 26.05.2014 and its true import.
Indeed, the said circular was issued in terms of Section 3
of the A.P. Reorganisation Act. Para 2 of the said circular
reads thus:-
“2. In this connection, it 1s stated that “law” as
defined in section 2(f) of the Act is as follows :-
(f) ‘law’ includes any enactment, ordinance,
regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme,
notification or other instrument having,
immediately before the appointed day, the
force of 1aw in the who1e or in any part of the
existing State of Andhra Pradesh”
16. Clauses (i) to (iii) of Paragraph 6 of the said circular
are also relevant in the circumstances and they read
thus:
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 16 of 32
“(i) all the laws, which were applicable to the
undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, as on 1-6-
2014, would continue to apply to the new States
i.e., State of Telangana and State of Andhra
Pradesh created Dy the Central Act, with effect
from 2-6-2014 notwithstanding the bifurcation of
the erstwhile Pradesh;
(ii) to facilitate their application in respect of the
State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh, the appropriate Government may,
before the expiration of two years from 2-6-2014,
by order, make such adaptions and modifications
of the law, whether by way of repeal or
amendment, as may be necessary or expedient,
and thereupon,
(iii) every such law as adapted or modified as
above, will continue till such time it altered,
repealed or amended by a competent
Legislature or other competent authority, in the
respective State.”
17. In contextual situation it is relevant to refer to the
decision of this Court in Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Ranchi and Ors. v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and
Coals (P) Ltd. and Ors4. This Court was considering the
question of continuity of laws in force in the erstwhile
State in the new States carved out of erstwhile State with
reference to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. It was
4
(2004) 6 SCC 689; 2004 INSC 378
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 17 of 32
held that States reorganisation legislations must be
construed in the light of the unusual situation created by
the creation of a new State and the object sought to be
achieved. It was held therein further that the laws which
were applicable to the undivided State of Bihar would
continue to apply to the new States created by the Act
and that the laws that operated would continue to
operate notwithstanding the bifurcation of the erstwhile
State of Bihar and creation of the new State of Jharkhand.
They would continue in force until and unless altered,
repealed or amended, it was further held.
18. It is in the light of the ratio of the aforesaid decision
and the wide definition given to the term ‘law’ under
paragraph 2 of the circular dated 26.05.2014 issued
under Section 3 of the AP Reorganisation Act, that the
effect of GOMS No.88 dated 07.08.2012 and such other
Government orders or other instruments in force and
brought into force, have to be looked into while
considering the questions involved in instant cases. In
terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the PC Act only a Special
Judge designated as such by notification, by a State or
Central Government would have the power to entertain
cases under the provisions of the PC Act. Indisputably,
as per GOMS No.88 dated 07.08.2012 the erstwhile State
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 18 of 32
of Andhra Pradesh notified the CBI Court at Hyderabad
to exercise jurisdiction over the districts in Telangana as
also in Rayalaseema Districts of AP namely, Chittoor,
Anandpur, Kadappa, and Kurnool to try offences under
the PC Act. The effect of the said GO dated 07.08.2012
and some other Government orders, hereinafter to be
referred, have to be looked into in the light of Circular
Memo dated 26.05.2014, as stated earlier.
19. The term ‘law’ was defined in para 2(f) of the
Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014. The said definition, as
extracted above, would reveal that it would take in any
order, bye-law, scheme, notification, or any other
instrument having immediately before the appointed
day viz., 02.06.2014, the force of law in the whole or in
any part of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus,
the cumulative effect of para 2(f), clauses (i) to (iii) of
para 6 of the said Circular dated 26.05.2014 as also other
notifications issued prior to 02.06.2014 or in modification
of the then existing law(s), as it is to be understood in
terms of the definition in para 2 (f), especially, in the
absence of repeal or alteration or amendment in the
State of Telangana also have to be looked into while
considering the question(s) involved in the cases on
hand.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 19 of 32
20. Now, we will refer to GORT No.1247, Home (SC.A
Department) dated 14.05.1990 whereunder general
consent for investigation by the CBI in the entire State of
Andhra Pradesh was accorded under Section 6 of the
DSPE Act to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the
said Act. It, in so far as relevant, reads thus:-
“Under Section-6 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of
1946), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby
accord general consent to all the members of
Delhi Special/ Establishment to / Police exercise
the powers and jurisdiction under the said act in
the State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of
the offences mentioned hereunder against (i)
Private Persons for alleged offences committed
whether acting separately or in conjunction with
Central Government/undertaking employees
and in case of State Govt. employees upto First
Gazetted level when acting along with or in
conjunction with private persons or Central Govt.
employees. However, in case of State
Government employees from 2nd level gazetted
posts sitting or former legislators, Members of
Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly
(even Ministers, Chairmen of Corporation etc.)
the CBI shall obtain prior consent of the State
Government in each case”.
21. In continuation of the GORT No.1247, Home (SC.A
Department) dated 14.05.1990, the general consent of
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 20 of 32
Government of Andhra Pradesh to exercise powers and
jurisdiction under the DSPE Act was accorded, rather,
extended as per subsequent Govt. orders such as GOMS
No.477, Home, “SC.A Department” dated 18.06.1994,
GOMS No.158, Home, “SC.A Department” dated
28.11.2014, GOMS No.67, Home, “SC.A Department”
dated 01.06.2016, GOMS No.184, Home, “SC.A
Department” dated 05.12.2017 and GOMS No.109
Home, “SC.A Department” dated 03.08.2018.
Obviously, under the said Government orders the order
granting general consent as has been mentioned in
14.05.1990 was extended within the limits of Andhra
Pradesh. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the
fact that under such Govt. orders according general
consent to exercise the powers and jurisdiction under
DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences
whether acting separately or in conjunction with Central
Govt./undertaking employees and State Govt.
employees upto first gazetted level, to all members of
DSPE. This cannot be construed or understood to mean
that employees of the Central Government/ Central
Government undertaking and State Government
employees up to first gazetted level are beyond the
reach of the CBI and only private persons acting
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 21 of 32
separately or in conjunction with such categories of
employees alone can be proceeded against. It is also to
be noted that even according to the High Court in the
impugned judgment, GOMS dt. 07.08.2012 issued by the
State of Andhra Pradesh CBI Court at Hyderabad was
given the power to exercise jurisdiction over
Rayalaseema districts of Andhra Pradesh, namely,
Chittoor, Anantpur, Kadappa and Kurnool to try cases
registered under the PC Act and the said provision
continued thereafter by subsequently issued Govt.
orders. In view of the impact of para 2(f) and clauses (i)
to (ii) under para 6 such notification or circulars which
were in force prior to the bifurcation or modified
subsequently, in the absence of repeal or amendment as
relates the subject matter involved thereunder within the
limits of State of Telangana should be presumed to exist
within the limits of State of Telangana and therefore, the
finding of the High Court all such ‘laws’ pertain only to
the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be the correct law
and the legal fiction should be that such laws would be in
force in the new State unless altered or repealed or
amended by it, in accordance with law. If in the light of
the aforesaid Govt. orders especially dated 26.05.2014,
the position is not construed in the said manner it will
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 22 of 32
create only lawlessness or in other words a total vacuum
in the subject matter(s) in which event persons could
engage in such offences with impunity to certain extent.
There cannot be any doubt that virtually it is to avoid
such a situation that the aforementioned Government
orders were issued and, therefore, any contra-
construction would defeat the very soul of the provisions
under the PC Act as also the very intent and purpose of
the Government orders which were given the status of
‘law’ by virtue of definition under para 2(f) of the Circular
Memo dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of the AP
Reorganisation Act.
22. In the light of the discussion as above and
construction of the Govt. orders it can only be held that
the High Court had erred in holding that there was no
notification issued conferring the status of Special Court
in terms of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court,
Hyderabad. Now, the transfer of the cases concerned
subsequent to the CBI Policy Division order regarding
the re-defining the territorial jurisdiction of CBI,
Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam branches dated
28.03.2019 and issuance of notification by the High Court
of Telangana vide ROC No.334/E-1/2008 dated
03.09.2019 and the transfer of CC Nos.35 of 2020 and 37
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 23 of 32
of 2020 to the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Kurnool were held as in accordance with law by the High
Court. In such circumstances and in the light of the
conclusion already arrived at, the terms of the provisions
under circular memo dated 26.05.2014 all “laws”
applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh on
01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the new States,
namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh despite the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of
Andhra Pradesh till such time they were altered,
repealed or amended.
23. Another aspect that skipped the attention of the
High Court, which will independent of the aforesaid
consideration and conclusion on the Government
orders, cloth the CBI with the power to register and
investigate the offence alleged against the first
respondent in the captioned appeals.
24. A. Satish Kumar, the first respondent in the former
appeal was the accused in CC No.13 of 2022. He was
working as Superintendent in Central Excise at Nandyal
(Kurnool) district. Sri Challa Sreenivasulu was working
as Accounts Assistant in the office of the Senior Divisional
Financial Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal.
The offence alleged against both of them was under
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 24 of 32
Section 7 of the PC Act, which is a Central Act. Bearing
in mind the aspects we will consider the challenge
against the impugned judgment.
25. Irrespective of the place of posting, the aforesaid
factual position would go onto show that they were
Central Government employees/Central Government
Undertaking employees and allegedly committed
serious offence under PC Act, which is a Central Act.
Therefore, the question is in such circumstances merely
because such an employee works within the territory of
a particular State, to register an FIR by the CBI in
connection with commission of an offence under a
Central Act whether consent from the State Government
concerned is required or not? The said question is no
longer a legal conundrum in view of the decisions of this
Court in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors.5 and in
Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.’s case
(supra).
26. In Kanwal Tanju’s case (supra), after extracting
Section 5 and 6 of DSPE Act, in para 19 thereof, this Court
held thus: –
“19. Sections 5 and 6 of the 1946 Act read thus: –
5
2020 SCC OnLine SC 395; 2020 INSC 357
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 25 of 32
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) in
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.
(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
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 26 of 32
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.
Such a consent may not be necessary regarding
the investigation by the special police force
(DSPE) in respect of specified offences committed
within Union Territory and other offences
associated therewith. That may be so, even if one
of the accused involved in the given case may be
residing or employed in some other State
(outside the Union Territory) including in
connection with the affairs of the State/local
body/corporation, company or bank of the State
or controlled by the State/institution
receiving or having received financial aid from
the State Government, as the case may be.
Taking any other view would require the special
police force to comply with the formality of
taking consent for investigation even in
relation to specified offence committed within
Union Territory, from the concerned State merely
because of the fortuitous situation that part of the
associated offence is committed in other State
and the accused involved in the offence is
residing in or employed in connection with the
affairs of that State. Such interpretation would
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 27 of 32
result in an absurd situation especially when the
1946 Act extends to the whole of India and the
special police force has been constituted
with a special purpose for investigation of
specified offences committed within the Union
Territory, in terms of notification issued under
Section 3 of the 1946 Act.
26. Indeed, the said notification contains a
proviso, which predicates that if any public
servant employed in connection with the affairs of
the Government of Bihar is concerned in offences
being investigated by the special police force
pursuant to the notification, prior consent of the
State Government qua him shall be obtained.
This proviso must operate limited to cases
or offences which have been committed within
the territory of the State of Bihar. If the specified
offence is committed outside the State of Bihar, as
in this case in Delhi, the State police will have no
jurisdiction to investigate such offence and for
which reason seeking consent of the State to
investigate the same would not arise. In our
opinion, the stated proviso will have no
application to the offence in question and
thus the Delhi special police force/DSPE (CBI)
must be held to be competent to register the FIR
at Delhi and also to investigate the same without
the consent of the State.
27. …
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 28 of 32
28. Suffice it to observe that the proviso contained
in the stated notification dated 19.2.1996 cannot
be the basis to disempower the special police
force/DSPE (CBI) from registering the offence
committed at Delhi to defraud the
Government of India undertaking (BRBCL) and
siphoning of its funds and having its registered
office at Delhi. Allegedly, the stated offence has
been committed at Delhi. If so, the Delhi Courts
will have jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof.
The State police (State of Bihar) cannot
investigate the specified offences committed
and accomplished at Delhi, being outside the
territory of the State of Bihar. It must follow that
the consent of the State of Bihar to investigate
such offence is not required in law and for which
reason, the special police force would be
competent to carry on the investigation thereof
even if one of the accused allegedly involved
in the commission of stated offence happens
to be resident of the State of Bihar or employed
in connection with the affairs of the
Government of Bihar and allegedly
committed associated offences in that capacity.
In other words, consent of the State under Section
6 cannot come in the way or constrict the
jurisdiction of the special police force constituted
under Section 2 to investigate specified offences
under Section 3 of the 1946 Act committed within
the Union Territories. Indeed, when the Court of
competent jurisdiction proceeds to take
cognizance of offence and particularly against
the appellant, it may consider the question
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 29 of 32
of necessity of a prior sanction of the State of Bihar
qua its official(s) as may be required by law. That
question can be considered on its own merits in
accordance with law.”
27. In the decision in Fertico Marketing and
Investment Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra), this Court in
paragraph 26 held thus:-
“26. Recently, a bench of this Court consisting
one of us (Khanwilkar J.) had an occasion to
consider the aforesaid provisions of DSPE Act, in
Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar, (2020) 20 SCC 531.
In the said case, the question arose, as to whether
when an offence was committed in the Union
Territory and one of the accused was
residing/employed in some other State outside
the said Union Territory, the Members of DSPE
had power to investigate the same, unless there
was a specific consent given by the concerned
State under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. The
contention on behalf of the appellant before the
High Court was that since the appellant was
employed in connection with the affairs of the
Government of Bihar, an investigation was not
permissible, unless there was a specific consent
of State of Bihar under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
This Court rejected the said contention holding
that if the offence is committed in Delhi, merely
because the investigation of the said offence
incidentally transcends to the Territory of State of
Bihar, it cannot be held that the investigation
against an officer employed in the territory ofSLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 30 of 32
Bihar cannot be permitted, unless there was
specific consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
While considering the argument on behalf of the
State, that such a consent was necessary for CBI
to proceed with the investigation, this Court held
that the respondent-State having granted general
consent in terms of Section 6 of the DSPE Act vide
notification dated 19.02.1996, it was not open to
the State to argue to the contrary.”
28. In the contextual situation it is also relevant to refer
to Resolution No.4-31-61-T dated 01.04.1963 of Ministry
of Home Affairs establishing the Central Bureau of
Investigation. Going by the said resolution dated
01.04.1963, it provides the function of the CBI in cases
where public servants under the control of the Central
Government are involved either themselves or with the
State Government servants and/or other person.
29. Thus, upon diallage we find it difficult to accede to
the contentions of the first respondent in the captioned
appeals made in a bid to support and sustain the
impugned judgment. In such circumstances,
considering the questions from such different angles we
are of the firm view that the impugned judgment
whereunder subject FIRs and further proceedings in
pursuance thereof, were quashed cannot be sustained.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 31 of 32
30. Hence, the appeals are allowed. Accordingly, the
impugned common order dated 13.04.2023 passed by
the High Court in WP No.26990 of 2021, and 5441 of 2022
are set aside. Resultantly, CC Nos.13 of 2022 and 15 of
2022 arising respectively from the FIR Nos.10A/2017 and
RC22(A)/2017, CBI, HYD, are restored into the files of
Court of Special Jude for CBI Cases, Kurnool, where it
was pending at the time of passing of the impugned
order. Needless to say, that after following the requisite
procedures and in accordance with law the trial Court
shall continue with those cases against the respective
first respondent in the captioned appeals.
……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)
……………………, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
January 02, 2025.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 32 of 32