Law Web: Supreme Court: State Anti-Corruption Bureau can investigate Prevention of Corruption Act offences against Central Government Employees

The question whether State police has jurisdiction to

investigate the offences of bribery and corruption under the PC

Act against the Central Government employees came up for

consideration before the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and

Andhra Pradesh respectively. A Division Bench of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2001 SCC OnLine MP 83, held that the State Police, be it a regular police force or the Special Police Establishment, can investigate the offences of bribery and

corruption against the Central Government employees posted in

the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Full Bench of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Arvind Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh,

reported in 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1294, also took the same view

that the offence of bribery and corruption against the Central

Government employees posted in the State of Madhya Pradesh can

be investigated by regular police force or Special Police

Establishment. A Single Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in

G.S.R. Somayaji (Dr.) v. State through CBI, reported in 2001

SCC OnLine AP 1196, held that the trap laid down against

Central Government employees and investigation done by the

State agency cannot be questioned on the premises that it is

illegal for want of jurisdiction. We agree with the dictum laid

down in those decisions. [ See : The State of Kerala v.

Navaneeth Krishnan, Kerala High Court, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker

5730] {Para 10}

11. We find no error, not to speak of any error of law, in

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

REPORTABLE

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-D

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.492/2026

NAWAL KISHORE MEENA @ N.K MEENA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Citation: 2026 INSC 71

Date : 19-01-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Two questions of law fell for the consideration of the

High Court. The two questions are as under:-

“(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

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 Anti-

Corruption 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?”

3. Both the questions, referred to above, have been answered

by the High Court against the petitioner. The High Court after

due consideration of the position of law and a review of

various decisions of this Court and the provisions of law, has

recorded a categorical finding that the ACB 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 High Court has taken the correct view

while saying that it is incorrect to say that it is only the

CBI who could have instituted the prosecution.

4. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act)

under which CBI is formed was enacted in the year 1946. The

scope of this Act was enlarged to cover all departments of

Government of India. Its jurisdiction was extended to the Union

Territories and could be further extended to the States with

the consent of concerned State Government. The DSPE Act, 1946

acquired its name as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

through the resolution dated 01.04.1963 passed by the Ministry

of Home, Govt. of India. In 1987, the CBI was divided into

following divisions: (a) Anti-corruption division, (b) The

special crime divisions,(c) Economic crime division,(d) The

policy and international police co-operation division, (e)

Administrative division, (f) The directorate of prosecution

division,(g) The central forensic division.

5. Although the law and order including investigation of

different criminal cases is a State subject and generally such

matters are being investigated by the State, yet the relation

between the CBI and the State Police is supplementary to each

other and as per the CBI constitution and inter se arrangement

between CBI and State police there are several areas where the

CBI and the Police require inter se cooperation and support. As

per the arrangement the cases of corruption by the Central

Government are being investigated by CBI and the cases of

bribery and corruption by the State Government employees are

being investigated by the State Police. CBI also has the power

under the CBI Constitution to investigate any case of the

nature which includes offences against the Central Government

employees, or concerning affairs of the Central Government and

employees of central public-sector undertakings and publicsector

banks, cases involving the financial interests of the

Central Government etc.

6. Section 156 of the Cr.P.C falling within Chapter XII

deals with powers of the police officers to investigate

cognizable offences. Sub Clause (1) of Section 156 of Cr. P.C

says that any officer in charge of a police station may,

without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable

case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area

within the limits of such station would have power to inquire

into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Sub Clause

(2) of Section 156 of Cr. P.C says that no proceeding of a

police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in

question on the ground that the case was one which such officer

was not empowered under this section to investigate. Section 4

of Cr.P.C. deals with the trial of offences under the Indian

Penal Code and other laws. Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of

Cr.P.C says that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall

be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with

according to the provisions of the Code. Sub Section (2) of

Section 4 of Cr.P.C makes it clear that all offences under any

other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and

otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but

subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating

the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or

otherwise dealing with such offences. The Criminal Procedure

Code is the parent statute which provides for investigation,

inquiry into and trial of cases and unless there is specific

provision in another statute to indicate a different procedure

to be followed, the provisions of Cr.P.C cannot be displaced.

In other words, 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.

7. The PC Act is a special enactment enacted to deal with

the bribery and corruption. Going by Section 4(2) read with

Section 156 of Cr.P.C, the provision of Cr.P.C shall be applied

to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the

provisions of the P.C Act which being a Special Act, will deal

with all kinds of the offences committed under it. Section 17

of the P.C. Act deals with investigation into cases under the

Act. It is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

“Section 17: Persons authorised to investigate.—

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police

officer below the rank,—

(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;

(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta,

Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan

area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section

8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;

a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate

any offence punishable under this Act without the

order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of

the first class, as the case may be, or make any

arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided that if a police officer not below the rank

of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State

Government in this behalf by general or special order,

he may also investigate any such offence without the

order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of

the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest

therefor without a warrant:

Provided further that an offence referred to in clause

(e) of subsection (1) of section 13 shall not be

investigated without the order of a police officer not

below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.”

8. 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. Section 17 does

not exclude or prevents 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 employess. It is for convenience and to avoid

duplication of work that the Central Bureau of Investigation -

a specialised investigating agency under the Special Police

Establishment - is entrusted with the task of investigation of

the cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of

Central Government and its Undertakings and the Anti -

Corruption Bureau - a specialised investigating agency of the

State - is entrusted with the task of investigation of the

cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of State

Government and its Undertakings. As stated above, Section 156

of Cr.P.C. authorizes any police officer in charge of a police

station to investigate a cognizable offence without the order

of the Magistrate. The word ‘Police Station’ has been defined

in Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code to mean “any post or

place declared generally or specially by the State Government,

to be a police Station, and includes any local area specified

by the State Government in this behalf”. The Vigilance and

Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) is also a wing of State Police.

The offences under the PC Act are also cognizable and can,

therefore, be investigated by the State Police or VACB. The

only rider is that the investigation can be done only by a

police officer of the rank specified in Section 17 of the PC

Act. As per Section 22 thereof, the provisions of Cr.P.C shall

apply save and except the specific areas envisaged by the Act.

9. A similar question came up for consideration before this

Court as early as in 1973 in A.C.Sharma v. Delhi

Administration, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 726. That was a case

where a crime was registered against the accused under Section

5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947 by the Anti-Corruption Department of

Delhi Administration (State agency). After investigation, the

final report was filed. The accused was tried before the

Special Judge, Delhi and he was convicted and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the High

Court of Delhi. He challenged the conviction and sentence

before this Court. The main ground urged by the accused before

this Court was that the DSPE Act as amended prescribed special

powers and procedure for investigation of offences of bribery

and corruption in the Departments of Central Government and as

he was an employee of the Central Public Works Department and

offences against him could only be investigated by the Special

Police Establishment established under the Delhi Special Police

Establishment Act. The investigation having not been done by

the Delhi Special Police Establishment, his trial was vitiated,

contended the accused. This Court after evaluating the rival

contentions 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 Central Bureau of Investigation has also been

constituted by notification passed under Section 3 of the DSPE

Act.

10. The question whether State police has jurisdiction to

investigate the offences of bribery and corruption under the PC

Act against the Central Government employees came up for

consideration before the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and

Andhra Pradesh respectively. A Division Bench of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of Madhya

Pradesh, reported in 2001 SCC OnLine MP 83, held that the State

Police, be it a regular police force or the Special Police

Establishment, can investigate the offences of bribery and