Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court had quashed the registration of FIRs, filing of charge sheets, and all further proceedings in two cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against the respondents, who were Central Government employees. The FIRs were registered in 2017 for offences under Section 7 of the PC Act, alleging that the respondents demanded and accepted illegal gratification. After investigation, charge sheets were filed before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, which took cognizance. Subsequently, due to administrative orders, the cases were transferred to the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vishakhapatnam, and later to Kurnool. The respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute them without the consent of the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), and that there was no valid notification under Section 3 of the PC Act designating a Special Judge. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the lack of consent and notification vitiated the proceedings. The CBI appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is not required for investigation of offences committed by Central Government employees, as the DSPE Act applies to the whole of India. The general consent given by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in 1990 continues to be valid for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the notification under Section 3 of the PC Act is not a condition precedent for trial by a Special Judge; the Special Judge appointed under the Act has jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act irrespective of the place of occurrence. The Court also upheld the validity of the transfer of cases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the trial in both cases was directed to proceed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Consent under Section 6 of DSPE Act - The issue was whether the CBI required fresh consent from the State of Andhra Pradesh to investigate offences committed by Central Government employees after the bifurcation of the State. The Supreme Court held that no such consent is required as the DSPE Act applies to the whole of India and the CBI is competent to investigate offences committed by Central Government employees without State consent. The general consent given by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in 1990 continues to be valid for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. (Paras 10-20) B) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 3 - Notification for Special Judge - The issue was whether the absence of a notification under Section 3 of the PC Act designating a Special Judge for CBI cases at Hyderabad vitiated the trial. The Supreme Court held that the notification under Section 3 is not a condition precedent for the trial of offences under the PC Act; the Special Judge appointed under the Act has jurisdiction to try such offences irrespective of the place of occurrence. (Paras 21-25) C) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Territorial Jurisdiction - The issue was whether the transfer of cases from Hyderabad to Vishakhapatnam and then to Kurnool was valid. The Supreme Court held that the transfer was in accordance with law and did not vitiate the proceedings. (Paras 8, 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lack of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and the lack of notification under Section 3 of the PC Act vitiate the registration of FIR, investigation, and trial in cases involving Central Government employees?
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned common judgment of High Court set aside; trial in CC No.13/2022 and CC No.15/2022 to proceed.
Law Points
- Consent under Section 6 of DSPE Act is not required for investigation of offences committed by Central Government employees
- Notification under Section 3 of PC Act is not a condition precedent for trial by Special Judge
- General consent given by erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh continues to be valid for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh
- Transfer of cases pursuant to administrative orders is valid and does not vitiate proceedings
