Supreme Court: In a Special Leave Petition (SLP) examining whether offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), allegedly committed by a Central Government employee within a State, can be investigated by the State Anti-Corruption Bureau, or whether jurisdiction to investigate Prevention of Corruption offences vests exclusively with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., affirmed the view of the Rajasthan High Court and held that —
-
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register and investigate offences under the PC Act even where the accused is a Central Government employee.
-
There is no requirement in law that prior approval or consent of the CBI must be obtained before such investigation.
-
A charge-sheet filed by the State ACB in such cases is valid in law.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a Central Government employee, was proceeded against for offences under the PC Act pursuant to registration of an FIR and investigation by the ACB, Rajasthan. The criminal proceedings arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan.
Aggrieved by the action of the State agency, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court, contending that in view of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), only the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the accused is a Central Government employee. It was further urged that in absence of prior approval or consent of the CBI, the ACB could neither register an FIR nor file a charge-sheet.
The High Court rejected the challenge and upheld the jurisdiction of the ACB to investigate and file the charge-sheet. Aggrieved the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP.
Moot Points
-
Whether, if an offence under the PC Act is committed by a person serving under the Central Government within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan, the State agency of ACB is authorised and has jurisdiction to register a criminal case and proceed with investigation and filing of charge-sheet, or whether such jurisdiction lies exclusively with the CBI?
-
Whether a charge-sheet filed by the ACB against a Central Government employee without obtaining approval or consent of the CBI can be considered valid in law and within jurisdiction for commencement and culmination of criminal trial?
Statutory Framework
The Court examined in detail the following provisions —
-
Section 156 of the CrPC, dealing with the powers of police officers to investigate cognizable offences.
-
Section 4 of the CrPC, which makes the CrPC the parent statute governing investigation, inquiry and trial unless a special enactment provides otherwise.
-
Section 17 of the PC Act, which prescribes the rank of officers authorised to investigate offences under the Act.
-
Section 22 of the PC Act, which makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable save and except the specific areas envisaged by the Act.
-
The scheme and object of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Court’s Analysis
CrPC is the parent statute governing investigation
The Court reiterated that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiry and trial of cases and unless there is a specific provision in another statute indicating a different procedure, the provisions of CrPC cannot be displaced.
“The existence of a special law by itself cannot be taken to exclude the operation of Cr. P.C. Unless the special law expressly or impliedly provides a separate provision for investigation, the general provision under Section 156 of Cr. P.C. shall prevail.”
Prevention of Corruption Act does not exclude State Police
The Court examined Section 17 of the PC Act and held that the PC Act does not envisage a separate procedure for investigation, nor does it exclude State Police from registering and investigating offences. The only rider is that the investigation must be carried out by an officer of the rank specified under Section 17 of the PC Act.
“The PC Act does not specifically envisage a separate procedure for conducting investigation. The offences under the PC Act can be investigated into by the State agency or by the Central agency or by any police agency as can be seen from Section 17 of the said Act with the qualification that the police officer shall be of a particular rank.”
CBI and State Police function in a supplementary manner
While acknowledging that, by convention and administrative arrangement, corruption cases against Central Government employees are ordinarily investigated by the CBI and cases against State employees by the ACB, the Court held that such arrangement does not take away the statutory powers of the State police.
“It is for convenience and to avoid duplication of work that the Central Bureau of Investigation … is entrusted with the task of investigation of the cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of Central Government … and the Anti-Corruption Bureau … is entrusted with the task of investigation of the cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of State Government. But Section 17 does not exclude or prevent the State Police or a Special Agency of the State from registering a crime or investigating cases relating to bribery, corruption and misconduct against Central Government employees.”
DSPE Act is enabling and permissive
Relying on A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration, (1973) 1 SCC 726, the Court reiterated that the DSPE Act is only permissive and empowering in nature and does not divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction.
“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.”
Consistent judicial view of other Courts
The Court agreed with the consistent line of authority in Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of M.P., 2001 SCC OnLine MP 83 and Arvind Jain v. State of M.P., 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1294 and G.S.R. Somayaji v. State, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 1196, where it was held that offences of bribery and corruption against Central Government employees posted in a State can be investigated by the State police or its specialised agency.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that offences under the PC Act are cognizable offences and can be investigated by the State Police or its specialised agency, even when the accused is a Central Government employee, provided the investigation is conducted by an officer of the rank prescribed under Section 17 of the PC Act.
The Court upheld the impugned order of High Court on not finding any error ‘not to speak of any error of law.’
[Nawal Kishore Meena v. State of Rajasthan, SLP (Crl.) No. 492 of 2026, Decided on 19-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Mr. Amit Ambawat, Ms. Sruthi Iyer, Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Ms. Riya Sharma, Ms. Rupali Panwar and Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Shivmangal Sharma, AAG and Mr. Puneet Parihar, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
