CBI Doesn't Need State Govt's Consent To Register FIR Under Central Law Against Central Govt Employee Posted In That State : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on January 2 held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not require permission from the State Government to register a First Information Report (FIR) under the Central Legislation against a Central Government employee just because the employee happens to work within the territory of a particular State.In this case, two FIRs were registered against central government employees working in Andhra Pradesh under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).The two accused persons then moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court contending that the general consent given for the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (DSPE) by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh cannot apply to the State after its bifurcation and that a fresh consent was needed from the newly formed State of AP. The High Court quashed the proceedings.The Supreme Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal set aside the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which had interpreted the DSPE, 1946 to mean that the consent of Andhra Pradesh was required to investigate the cases.The Supreme Court held that as per the 1990 Government Order, general consent was given to the CBI to investigate cases under the jurisdiction of the DSPE Act. Then, through subsequent orders, this general consent was extended in AP as well.Apart from this, the Court took note of the fact that in the present case, the offences alleged were against the Central Government employee under legislation of the Central Government. Therefore, the Court framed the issue as follows: "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?"Answering this, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interpreting that the consent of the Andhra Pradesh Government was required. It referred to Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors.(2020) and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2020). In Kanwal Tanju, the Court interpreted the DPSE Act and observed: "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."In Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd., the Court held: "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 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."It also referred to the 1963 resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs establishing the Central Bureau of Investigation, which 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 persons.Also from the judgment- Laws Applicable To Andhra Pradesh Continue To Apply To New States Of Telangana & AP After Bifurcation : Supreme CourtCase Details: The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 11Click here to read the judgment

CBI Doesn't Need State Govt's Consent To Register FIR Under Central Law Against Central Govt Employee Posted In That State : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

CBI Doesn't Need State Govt's Consent To Register FIR Under Central Law Against Central Govt Employee Posted In That State : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers