2025 (1) TMI 133 - SC - Indian Laws

Acceptance of an illegal gratification from the original complainant - whether CBI had power to register the FIRs and investigate offences qua respondent No.1 in the appeals? - whether the FIR for offences under the PC Act could be registered in Hyderabad in the State of Telangana when the offences alleged to have been committed at places within the State of Andhra Pradesh and for that reason whether the CBI Court in the State of Telangana got jurisdiction to try the offence under the PC Act in respect of offences allegedly committed at places falling within the State of Andhra Pradesh? HELD THAT - The term law was defined in para 2(f) of the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014. The said definition, as extracted above, would reveal that it would take in any order, bye-law, scheme, notification, or any other instrument having immediately before the appointed day viz., 02.06.2014, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the cumulative effect of para 2(f), clauses (i) to (iii) of para 6 of the said Circular dated 26.05.2014 as also other notifications issued prior to 02.06.2014 or in modification of the then existing law(s), as it is to be understood in terms of the definition in para 2 (f), especially, in the absence of repeal or alteration or amendment in the State of Telangana also have to be looked into while considering the question(s) involved in the cases on hand. In the contextual situation it is also relevant to refer to Resolution No.4-31-61-T dated 01.04.1963 of Ministry of Home Affairs establishing the Central Bureau of Investigation. Going by the said resolution dated 01.04.1963, it 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 person - it is difficult to accede to the contentions of the first respondent in the captioned appeals made in a bid to support and sustain the impugned judgment. In such circumstances, considering the questions from such different angles, the impugned judgment whereunder subject FIRs and further proceedings in pursuance thereof, were quashed cannot be sustained. Conclusion - The laws which were applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh would continue to apply to the new States created by the Act and that the laws that operated would continue to operate notwithstanding the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. CBI retains jurisdiction to investigate offences within the newly formed states without requiring fresh consent. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had the power to register First Information Reports (FIRs) and investigate offences within the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh without explicit consent from the State Government under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act).
• Whether the Court of the Special Judge for CBI cases in Hyderabad had jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) that were allegedly committed within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
• Whether the absence of a notification designating a Special Court under the PC Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation affected the jurisdiction and legality of the proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Consent under the DSPE Act

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act require state consent for the CBI to exercise powers within a state. The judgment references the decision in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI and Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar, which clarify the conditions under which state consent is necessary.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court reasoned that the general consent given by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh continued to apply post-bifurcation due to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014.
• Key evidence and findings: The court found that the general consent given via GORT No. 1247 and subsequent government orders extended the CBI's jurisdiction within Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation.
• Application of law to facts: The court concluded that the CBI was empowered to register and investigate the FIRs without requiring fresh consent from the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court dismissed the argument that new consent was required, emphasizing the continuity of laws and consents post-bifurcation.
• Conclusions: The absence of a new consent did not invalidate the CBI's actions, as the existing consents continued to apply.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Special Court

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 3 and 4 of the PC Act and relevant notifications under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Hyderabad extended to the districts in question due to the continuation of notifications and orders post-bifurcation.
• Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the notification GOMS No. 88, which designated jurisdiction to the CBI Court at Hyderabad, continued to apply post-bifurcation.
• Application of law to facts: The court found that the Special Court at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the cases, as the notifications were still in effect.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court rejected the argument that the Hyderabad court lacked jurisdiction, citing the continuity of legal orders post-bifurcation.
• Conclusions: The Special Court at Hyderabad retained jurisdiction over the cases due to the continued applicability of pre-bifurcation notifications.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The laws which were applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh would continue to apply to the new States created by the Act and that the laws that operated would continue to operate notwithstanding the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh."
• Core principles established: The continuity of legal orders and consents post-bifurcation ensures that the CBI retains jurisdiction to investigate offences within the newly formed states without requiring fresh consent.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment quashing the FIRs and proceedings, thereby restoring the cases to the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool, for continuation of trial.

The Supreme Court's judgment emphasizes the importance of continuity in legal frameworks post-state bifurcation, ensuring that existing consents and notifications remain effective unless explicitly altered or repealed.