2025 INSC 11

SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 1 of 32

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)

J U D G M E N T

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

Writ Petition No.5441 of 2022 was filed by the first

respondent in the latter appeal. As observed by the High

SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 2 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 issuance

SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 3 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 4 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 5 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, II

nd

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 6 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 7 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 II

nd

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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 Prasad

2

, 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 Ors

4

. 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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 of

SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 31 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 32 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.