State Govt's Consent Not Required To Register FIR By CBI For Offence Under Central Act Merely Because Central Govt Employee Works Within State's Territory: SC
The Supreme Court observed that the consent from the State Government is not required to register an FIR by the CBI in connection with an offence under a Central Act, merely because Central Government employee/Central Government Undertaking employee works within the territory of a particular State.
The Court observed thus in Criminal Appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the common Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “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. and in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra)”
Additional Solicitor Generals (ASGs) K. M. Nataraj and S.V. Raju represented the Appellant while AOR Ashutosh Jha represented the Respondents.
In this case, two Appeals were filed by the CBI against the quashing of proceedings in two corruption cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The cases were initially registered and investigated by the CBI in Hyderabad, but were later transferred to Vishakhapatnam and then Kurnool. The accused individuals challenged the jurisdiction of the CBI Court in Hyderabad, arguing that the CBI required consent from the State of Andhra Pradesh to investigate and prosecute the cases. They also contended that the Special Court for CBI Cases in Hyderabad lacked the jurisdiction to try the cases.
Much prior to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, the Government of erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh vide an Order, gave general consent for investigation by the CBI in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the accused, quashing the proceedings on the grounds that the CBI lacked consent from the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the Special Court for CBI Cases in Hyderabad was not notified to try the cases. The CBI, therefore, filed Appeals against this Judgment before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above regard, said, “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.”
The Court noted that, irrespective of the place of posting, the 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.
“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”, it added.
The Court concluded that the impugned Judgment whereunder subject FIRs and further proceedings in pursuance thereof were quashed, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the High Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 11)
Appearance:
Appellant: ASGs K. M. Nataraj, S.V. Raju, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Vatsal Joshi, Sairica Raju, Shantanu Sharma, Zoheb Hussain, Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Annam Venkatesh, S.S. Rebello, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, and Anirudh Sharma-II.
Respondents: AORs Ashutosh Jha, Gopal Jha, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocates Mary Mitzy, B Ravikiran Singh, Oleander D Singh, Shivam Tomar, D. Bharat Kumar, Aman Shukla, M. Chandrakanth Reddy, and Prerna Singh.
