State Agency Can Investigate Corruption Cases Against Central Govt Officers : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 19) held that police authorities are competent to investigate and file a chargesheet in cases relating to offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by Central Government employees.
The Court clarified that no prior permission of the CBI is required before registering the case against the central government employee by the State police, and the chargesheet filed by the State's investigative agencies can't be held invalid for lacking CBI's sanction.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision, which refused to quash the corruption case against the Central Govt. employee, noting that the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register the criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) despite the fact that the accused is an employee of the Central Government.
The following issues were answered against the petitioner by the High Court:
"(I) If any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is committed by a person, serving under the Central Government, or an employee of the Central Government, within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan, whether the State agency of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) is authorized and has jurisdiction to register a criminal case against such person and to proceed for investigation and filing of charge-sheet. Or whether the jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and without prior approval/ consent of the CBI, the ACB cannot proceed in the matter?
(II) If a charge-sheet of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is filed by the AntiCorruption Bureau against a person, serving under the Central Government or an employee of the Central Government before the Court of competent jurisdiction, but without obtaining the approval/ consent of the CBI, whether such charge-sheet can be considered valid in law and within jurisdiction to commence and culminate the criminal trial of such offence in accordance with law?"
The Court rejected the Appellant-Central government employee's argument that only the Central Bureau of Investigation established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act can register, investigate, and file a charge sheet in cases involving the central government. employee.
In support of its view, the Court relied upon A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration, (1973) 1 SCC 726, where the Delhi State Administration had registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which resulted in the conviction of the accused and was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The accused then approached the Supreme Court, contending that, in view of the special powers and procedures prescribed under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (as amended), offences relating to bribery and corruption committed by Central Government employees could be investigated only by the Special Police Establishment. Since he was an employee of the Central Public Works Department and the investigation had not been conducted by the DSPE, he argued that the entire trial stood vitiated.
Rejecting the accused's arguments, the Supreme Court in A.C. Sharma held that “the scheme of the DSPE Act does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction, power and competence to investigate into offences under any other competent law. It was further held that the DSPE Act seems to be only permissive or empowering, intended merely to enable the Delhi Special Police Establishment also to investigate into the offences specified as contemplated by Section 3 without impairing any other law empowering the police authorities to investigate offences.”
The Court also approved the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 SCC OnLine MP 83, and Arvind Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1294, the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.S.R. Somayaji (Dr.) v. State through CBI, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 1196, and the recent judgment of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan and other connected matters. These rulings consistently held that offences of bribery and corruption committed by Central Government employees posted in a State can be investigated either by the regular State police or by the Special Police Establishment, and that a trap laid and investigation conducted by the State agency cannot be assailed as illegal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Thus, finding no error of law in the impugned decision, the SLP filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
Cause Title: NAWAL KISHORE MEENA @ N.K MEENA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 68
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Ambawat, Adv. Ms. Sruthi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Adv. Ms. Riya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivmangal Sharma, AAG Mr. Puneet Parihar, Adv.