New Delhi, Jan 21:
The Supreme Court has held that state police authorities are competent to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) even when the accused is a central government employee, clarifying that such cases are not within the exclusive domain of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The court further ruled that no prior permission or consent of CBI is required for a state police agency to register an FIR or file a charge sheet against a central government employee, and that proceedings initiated by a state’s anti-corruption agency cannot be invalidated on the ground that CBI was not involved.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld a Rajasthan High Court judgment refusing to quash a corruption case registered by the state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against a central government employee, holding that ACB had jurisdiction to investigate the offence under the PC Act despite the accused being employed by the Centre.
The apex court was examining a special leave petition challenging the high court’s October 2015 order, which had answered two questions of law against the petitioner, Nawal Kishore Meena — whether the Rajasthan ACB could investigate a corruption offence allegedly committed by a central government employee within the state’s territorial jurisdiction, and whether a charge sheet filed by the state agency without CBI approval was valid in law.
Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court said the high court had taken the “correct view” in holding that it was erroneous to suggest that only CBI could institute prosecution in such cases.
Tracing the statutory framework, the bench noted that while the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, under which CBI was constituted, empowers the central agency to investigate corruption cases involving central government employees, it does not divest state police authorities of their powers to investigate cognisable offences under other competent laws.
“The scheme of the DSPE Act is permissive or enabling in nature,” noted the court, adding that it merely allows CBI to investigate specified offences without impairing the jurisdiction or competence of regular state police forces.
The bench emphasised that under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), any officer in charge of a police station is empowered to investigate a cognisable offence without prior permission of a magistrate, and that such proceedings cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of investigative authority.
The court also examined the scheme of the PC Act, noting that while it is a special statute dealing with bribery and corruption, it does not prescribe a separate or exclusive investigative procedure. Instead, Section 17 of the Act only stipulates the rank of the police officer authorised to investigate offences under the law.
“Section 17 does not exclude or prevent the State Police or a special agency of the State from registering or investigating offences of bribery and corruption against Central Government employees,” the bench said.
The court clarified that while it may be a matter of administrative convenience for corruption cases involving central government employees to be handled by CBI and those involving state employees by state vigilance agencies, this arrangement does not amount to a legal bar on state police exercising jurisdiction.
Relying on its 1973 judgment in AC Sharma Vs Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court maintained that the existence of the DSPE Act does not impliedly oust the powers of regular police authorities to investigate corruption offences under the PC Act.
The bench also noted that several high courts, including those of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, have consistently held that state police agencies are competent to investigate corruption cases against central government employees posted within their territorial jurisdiction.
Finding no legal infirmity in the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the charge sheet filed by the state ACB could not be invalidated merely because CBI had not granted approval or conducted the investigation.