A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar (since retired) and Rajesh Bindal allowed an appeal by the CBI against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment of April 13, 2023, which quashed the FIRs against A Satish Kumar and others for offences registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 

Satish Kumar, working as Superintendent, Central Excise, Nandyal, (Kurnool), District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, was accused of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs 10,000 from a contractor in 2017 for issuance of licence surrender certificate. Another person was similarly accused of demanding and accepting Rs 15,000 from a contractor for processing bills.

 

The respondent accused contended that the AP Re-Organisation Act was passed in 2014 and on June 02, 2014 viz., the appointed day, two States were created by bifurcating the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, namely, State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana and, in the said circumstances, for the CBI to register and investigate FIR within the limits of the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh, permission from the Government of Andra Pradesh was necessary as per the provisions of the ‘DSPE Act’.

 

The accused's counsel also contended that the subject FIRs were registered by the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana whereas the alleged offence in those FIRs had taken place in Kurnool and Ananthapur districts which were and still, within the State of Andhra Pradesh, and further that on the dates of registration of those FIRs there was no express permission as required under Section 6 of the DSPE Act to register them and also to investigate the same.

 

Based on such grounds, they, therefore, claimed that the entire investigation and the filing of the charge sheet were vitiated and further that the court at Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction to entertain the cases.

 

The High Court had considered the questions whether the lack of consent as also the lack of notification for a Special Court under the PC Act would go into the root of the matter and thereby vitiate the proceedings. Both the questions were answered in the affirmative and accordingly, the registration of the respective FIR and filing of the chargesheets were held as vitiated for the absence of consent from the State of Telangana to the CBI to register the FIRs and conduct investigation.

 

In its arguments, the CBI said the High Court had failed to consider the Circular Memo of May 26, 2014, and its true import. It contended that the circular clarified the position that all ‘laws’ applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh as on June 01, 2014 would continue to apply to the newly created States due to bifurcation, namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. June 02, 2014, despite the bifurcation, the CBI stated.

 

The bench concurred with the submission, stating that the High Court's conclusion—that all such ‘laws’ applied solely to the State of Andhra Pradesh—could not be considered correct. The legal fiction, it emphasized, is that such laws would remain in force in the newly formed state unless modified, repealed, or amended in accordance with the law.

 

"If the position is not construed in the said manner it will create only lawlessness or in other words a total vacuum in the subject matter(s) in which event persons could engage in such offences with impunity to certain extent. There cannot be any doubt that virtually it is to avoid such a situation that the aforementioned Government orders were issued and, therefore, any contra construction would defeat the very soul of the provisions under the PC Act as also the very intent and purpose of the Government orders which were given the status of ‘law’ by virtue of definition under para 2(f) of the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of the AP Reorganisation Act," the bench said.

 

The court thus held the High Court had erred in holding that there was no notification issued conferring the status of Special Court in terms of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court, Hyderabad.

 

Dealing with another aspect, the bench noted irrespective of the place of posting, the factual position showed that the respondents were central government employees/central government undertaking employees and allegedly committed serious offence under PC Act, which is a Central Act.

 

"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? The said question is no longer a legal conundrum," the bench said, relying upon Kanwal Tanuj Vs State of Bihar and Ors (2020) and in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt Ltd’s (2020).

 

The court also referred to a Resolution of April 01, 1963 of Ministry of Home Affairs establishing the Central Bureau of Investigation. Going by the said resolution, 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 said.

 

Thus, after considering the questions from such different angles, the bench held, "We are of the firm view that the impugned judgment whereunder subject FIRs and further proceedings in pursuance thereof, were quashed cannot be sustained."

 

The court allowed the CBI's appeal and restored the criminal proceedings to the files of Special Judge.