# The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 11
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-01-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2024
- **Bench:** C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-central-bureau-of-investigation-v-a-satish-kumar-ors-38742
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Merely because a Central Government employee works within the
territory of a particular State, whether the CBI requires consent
from the concerned State Government to register an FIR against
such Central Government employee in connection with commission
of an offence under a Central Act; whether the High Court was
justified in quashing the FIRs and the subsequent proceedings
against the respondents holding that the same were vitiated in
view of the lack of consent and the lack of notification for a Special
Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Headnotes†
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - ss.6,
5 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.7, 4 - Andhra
Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 - s.3 - FIRs under s.7, PC Act
were registered against the respondents, Central Government
employees working in the State of Andhra Pradesh - FIRs and
subsequent proceedings were challenged contending that after
the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into the State
of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, for the CBI to
register and investigate FIR within the newly formed State of
Andhra Pradesh, consent of the Government of Andra Pradesh
was necessary as per the DSPE Act - High Court quashed the
FIRs and the subsequent proceedings - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - Much prior to the bifurcation of the State
of Andhra Pradesh into two States in 2014, the Government of
erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
14.05.1990, gave general consent for investigation by the CBI in
the entire State of Andhra Pradesh - In continuation thereof, the
general consent of Government of Andhra Pradesh to exercise
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
131
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
powers and jurisdiction under the DSPE Act was accorded, rather,
extended within the limits of Andhra Pradesh as per subsequent
Govt. orders of 2014, 206, 2017 and 2018 - There cannot be
any doubt w.r.t the fact that under such Govt. orders according
general consent to exercise the powers and jurisdiction under
DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether
acting separately or in conjunction with Central Govt./undertaking
employees and State Govt. employees upto first gazetted level, to
all members of DSPE - This cannot mean that employees of the
Central Government/ Central Government undertaking and State
Government employees up to first gazetted level are beyond the
reach of the CBI and only private persons acting separately or
in conjunction with such categories of employees alone can be
proceeded against - Respondents were Central Govt. employees/
Central Govt. Undertaking employees and allegedly committed
serious offence under PC Act, a Central Act - Furthermore, the
1963 Resolution of Ministry of Home Affairs establishing the CBI
provides its function 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 - Impugned
judgment set aside - FIRs restored. [Paras 5, 21, 28, 30]
Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.4, 7 - FIRs in question were
challenged by the respondents on the ground that they were
registered by the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana whereas
the alleged offence in the FIRs had taken place in Kurnool
and Ananthapur districts which were and still, within the
State of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation and that the Court
at Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction to entertain the cases -
Laws applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, if
continued to apply to the new States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh despite bifurcation:
Held: Yes - High Court 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 - Even
according to the High Court, GOMS dt. 07.08.2012 issued by the
State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI Court at H

## Text

_Characters 0–39,257 of 48,643. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39257 for what follows._

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 130 : 2025 INSC 11
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation
v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2024)
02 January 2025
[C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Merely because a Central Government employee works within the
territory of a particular State, whether the CBI requires consent
from the concerned State Government to register an FIR against
such Central Government employee in connection with commission
of an offence under a Central Act; whether the High Court was
justified in quashing the FIRs and the subsequent proceedings
against the respondents holding that the same were vitiated in
view of the lack of consent and the lack of notification for a Special
Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Headnotes†
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - ss.6,
5 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.7, 4 - Andhra
Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 - s.3 - FIRs under s.7, PC Act
were registered against the respondents, Central Government
employees working in the State of Andhra Pradesh - FIRs and
subsequent proceedings were challenged contending that after
the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into the State
of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, for the CBI to
register and investigate FIR within the newly formed State of
Andhra Pradesh, consent of the Government of Andra Pradesh
was necessary as per the DSPE Act - High Court quashed the
FIRs and the subsequent proceedings - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - Much prior to the bifurcation of the State
of Andhra Pradesh into two States in 2014, the Government of
erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
14.05.1990, gave general consent for investigation by the CBI in
the entire State of Andhra Pradesh - In continuation thereof, the
general consent of Government of Andhra Pradesh to exercise
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
131
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
powers and jurisdiction under the DSPE Act was accorded, rather,
extended within the limits of Andhra Pradesh as per subsequent
Govt. orders of 2014, 206, 2017 and 2018 - There cannot be
any doubt w.r.t the fact that under such Govt. orders according
general consent to exercise the powers and jurisdiction under
DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether
acting separately or in conjunction with Central Govt./undertaking
employees and State Govt. employees upto first gazetted level, to
all members of DSPE - This cannot mean that employees of the
Central Government/ Central Government undertaking and State
Government employees up to first gazetted level are beyond the
reach of the CBI and only private persons acting separately or
in conjunction with such categories of employees alone can be
proceeded against - Respondents were Central Govt. employees/
Central Govt. Undertaking employees and allegedly committed
serious offence under PC Act, a Central Act - Furthermore, the
1963 Resolution of Ministry of Home Affairs establishing the CBI
provides its function 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 - Impugned
judgment set aside - FIRs restored. [Paras 5, 21, 28, 30]
Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.4, 7 - FIRs in question were
challenged by the respondents on the ground that they were
registered by the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana whereas
the alleged offence in the FIRs had taken place in Kurnool
and Ananthapur districts which were and still, within the
State of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation and that the Court
at Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction to entertain the cases -
Laws applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, if
continued to apply to the new States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh despite bifurcation:
Held: Yes - High Court 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 - Even
according to the High Court, GOMS dt. 07.08.2012 issued by the
State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI Court at Hyderabad was given the
power to exercise jurisdiction over Rayalaseema districts of Andhra
Pradesh, namely, Chittoor, Anantpur, Kadappa and Kurnool to try
cases registered under the PC Act and this continued thereafter
132
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by subsequently issued Govt. orders - In view of the impact of
para 2(f) and clauses (i) to (ii) under para 6, such notification or
circulars which were in force prior to the bifurcation or modified
subsequently, in the absence of repeal or amendment as relates
the subject matter involved thereunder within the limits of State of
Telangana should be presumed to exist within the limits of State of
Telangana - Thus, the finding of the High Court that all such 'laws'
pertain only to the State of Andhra Pradesh is not correct and the
legal fiction should be that such laws would be in force in the new
State unless altered or repealed or amended by it, in accordance
with law - Thus, the terms of the provisions under circular memo
dated 26.05.2014, all "laws" applicable to the undivided State of
Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the
new States, i.e., the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh despite the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra
Pradesh till such time they were altered, repealed or amended.
[Paras 21, 22]
Case Law Cited
Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2020 INSC 357 : 2020
SCC OnLine SC 395; Fertico Marketing and Investment Private
Limited and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. [2020]
12 SCR 956 : (2021) 2 SCC 525 - relied on.
State of Punjab and Others v. Balbir Singh & Ors. [1976] 2 SCR
115 : (1976) 3 SCC 242; C.B.I., A.H.D., Patna v. Braj Bhushan
Prasad [2001] Supp. 3 SCR 627 : (2001) 9 SCC 432; Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and Ors. v. Swarn Rekha Cokes
and Coals (P) Ltd. and Ors. [2004] Supp. 2 SCR 633 : (2004) 6
SCC 689 - referred to.
List of Acts
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Andhra Pradesh
Re-Organisation Act, 2014; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
DSPE Act; General consent for investigation by the CBI; General
consent to exercise the powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act;
Bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh; Erstwhile undivided
State of Andhra Pradesh; State of Telangana; New States; Consent
from the concerned State Government; Commission of offence
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
133
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
under a Central Act; Lack of consent; Employees of the Central
Government/Central Government undertaking; CBI; Policy division
order; Territorial jurisdiction of CBI; Government orders; CBI Court;
Special Court; Lack of notification for a Special Court; FIR; Further
proceedings; Quashing; Special Court in terms of Section 4 of the
PC Act; Repealed; Amended; Altered; 'law'.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
898 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2023 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WP No. 26990 of 2021
With
Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
K.M. Natraj, S.V. Raju, A.S.Gs., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Vatsal
Joshi, Ms. Sairica Raju, Shantanu Sharma, Zoheb Hussain, Sanjay
Kr. Tyagi, Annam Venkatesh, S.S. Rebello, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi,
Anirudh Sharma-ii, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Mary Mitzy, B Ravikiran Singh, Oleander D Singh, Ashutosh
Gupta, Ashutosh Jha, D. Bharat Kumar, Aman Shukla, Amit Kumar,
Ms. Ekta Swarup, Gopal Jha, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki
Gowtham, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, K V Girish Chowdary, T Vijaya
Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Archita Nigam, Meeran Maqbool, Advs. for
the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
1.
The self-same appellant, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation
(for short, 'the CBI') calls in question the common judgment dated
13.04.2023 in W.P. Nos.26990 of 2021 and 5441 of 2022 passed by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Writ Petition No.26990 of 2021
was filed by the first respondent in the former appeal and Writ Petition
134
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
No.5441 of 2022 was filed by the first respondent in the latter appeal.
As observed by the High Court in the impugned common judgment,
common question(s) of law arose for consideration in both the cases
in identical circumstances and the High Court took W.P. No.26990 of
2022 as the lead case. Consequent to the consideration of the legal
and factual position, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition
and for the same reasoning allowed W.P. No.5441 of 2022 as per
the impugned common judgment.
2.
Before dealing with the precise question(s) of law involved in the
captioned appeals, it is appropriate to refer, succinctly, to the factual
background that ultimately led to the filing of the Writ Petitions and
their culmination in the impugned common judgment, as under:-
FIR No.10 (A)/2017 was registered for offences under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act') against
the first respondent in Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2024 while he
was working as Superintendent, Central Excise, Nandyal, (Kurnool),
District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The allegation was that he
demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of ₹10,000/- from the
original complainant, Sri. Arif, who was a contractor, on 09.05.2017
for issuance of licence surrender certificate qua Excise Registration
Certificate No. AHC PC 1141 KEM 001.
3.
In the latter appeal, against the first respondent therein, FIR
No.RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD was registered under Section 7 of the PC
Act. The allegation was that while working as Accounts Assistant in
the office of Senior Divisional Financial Manager, Guntakal, by abusing
his office as public servant he demanded and obtained ₹15,000/- as
illegal gratification from the original complainant therein, Sri. C. Dorrai
Rajulu Naidu on 20.11.2017 for doing official favour of processing
contract bills for the months of July, 2017 to September, 2017 and
also previously sanctioned bills for the month of March to May, 2017
and June, 2017. In both the cases, after completion of investigation,
chargesheets were filed before the Court of Principal, Special Judge
for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. In the case of former appeal, it was so filed
on 28.12.2017 and in the latter case it was so filed on 29.03.2018.
The Court took cognizance, in the former case, on 16.07.2018 and
took on it file as CC No.2/2018 and in the latter case, on taking
cognizance it was taken on file as CC No.6/2018 on 03.08.2018. On
28.03.2019, the CBI, policy division order, redefining the territorial
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
135
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
jurisdiction of CBI, ACB, Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam branches
was issued. On 03.09.2019, the High Court of Telangana vide ROC
No.334/E-1/2008 issued a notification regarding the jurisdiction of
four Rayalaseema Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, namely,
Kurnool, Kadappa, Chittoor and Ananthapurand for their inclusion in
the jurisdiction of CBI Courts Vishakhapatnam by deleting the same
from the jurisdiction of CBI Courts at Hyderabad.
4.
Earlier, as per the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 (for
short, 'the A.P. Re-Organisation Act'), w.e.f. 02.06.2014, the State
of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated geographically into two States
namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana.
Indisputably, despite the birth of two States by such bifurcation the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh continued to be the common High
Court for States i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana till December,
2018. As relates the causative incident which led to the registration
of the FIR No.10(A)/2017 against the first respondent in the former
appeal, it occurred within the limits of Kurnool District and that of FIR
No.RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD it occurred within the limits of Ananthapur,
both were in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Even after the bifurcation
those districts remained with the State of Andhra Pradesh. As noticed
earlier, both the aforesaid FIRs were registered for offences under
Section 7 of the PC Act at Hyderabad in Telangana State by the CBI,
ACB Hyderabad and on completion of investigation the CBI filed final
reports before the Court of Principal, Special Judge for CBI cases,
Hyderabad and that Court took cognizance of offences based on
such final reports and took them on file and assigned CC Nos.2/2018
and 6/2018 respectively. As noted earlier, ROC Nos.334/E-1/2008
dated 03.09.2019 was issued by the High Court of Telangana, on
its administrative side, directing to transfer the CBI cases pertaining
to the districts of Kurnool, Kadappa, Chittoor and Ananthapur of
Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh to the Court of Special
Judge for CBI cases at Vishakhapatnam. Accordingly, those cases
were transferred and re-numbered respectively as CC No.35/2020
and CC No.37/2020. Still, later as per GOMS No.9 & 10 Law (LA, LA
& J-Home Court A) Department dated 09.01.2020, IIndSpecial Judge
for CBI Cases, Vishakhapatnam was shifted from Vishakhapatnam
to Kurnool. Consequently, CC No.35/2020 was re-numbered as CC
No.13 of 2022 and CC No.37/2020 was re-numbered as CC No.15
of 2022, on the files of the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases,
136
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Kurnool. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the respective first
respondent in the captioned appeals who were the respective accused
in CC No.13 of 2022 and CC No.15/2022 moved the aforementioned
Writ Petitions which culminated in the impugned common judgment
dated 13.04.2023.
5.
Much prior to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two
States, as above,the Government of erstwhile undivided State of
Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 14.05.1990, gave general consent
for investigation by the CBI in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh.
Going by the said notification, general consent was accorded under
Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for
short, 'the DSPE Act') to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the
said Act in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of
the offences mentioned thereunder. We will dilate on its impact and
effect a little later.
6.
Writ Petition No.26990 of 2021 was filed by the first respondent in the
former appeal mainly seeking to issue a writ order or direction, more
particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the
action of conducting trial in CC No.35 of 2020 (later got the number
of the case as CC No.13/2022), pending on the files of the Court of
IInd Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vishakhapatnam as illegal
and to quash the same, raising various grounds. It was contended that
the A.P. Re-Organisation Act was passed in 2014 and on 02.06.2014
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 Nos.10(A)/2017 and RC22(A)/2017CBI/HYD 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'. It was further
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, it was contended
that the entire investigation and the filing of the charge sheet are
vitiated and further that the Court at Hyderabad lacks jurisdiction to
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
137
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
entertain the cases. Furthermore, it was contended that under the
PC Act, a specific notification was to be issued either by the State
or by the Central Government designating a Judge to try offences
thereunder and only the Special Judge could try offences under the
PC Act cases. It was also the contention of the Writ Petitioner/the
first respondent that till December 2017, the Government of Andhra
Pradesh did not accord consent for prosecution of Central Government
servants under the provisions of the PC Act and therefore, Special
Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad could not have entertained the
aforesaid case against him. So also, for the same reasons neither
CBI Court nor the High Court had jurisdiction to transfer the cases
to the CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam. The subsequent events could
not cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction and as such, the entire
proceedings got vitiated, it was further submitted.
7.
Obviously, the same contentions, with necessary factual changes,
were made on behalf of the first respondent in the latter appeal,
who was the accused in CC No.15/2022, in Writ Petition No.5441
of 2022 to support the prayer to quash CC No.15/2022 and all
further proceedings thereof. The appellant herein who was one of
the respondents therein, strongly resisted the contentions regarding
inherent lack of jurisdiction and contended that the proceedings did
not get vitiated as contended by the Writ Petitioners.
8.
A scrutiny of the impugned judgment would reveal that the High
Court upon reviewing the sequence of events held that the transfer
of cases from the Additional CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam to Kurnool
is not per se wrong and, in fact, it is in accordance with law. We may
hasten to add here that the said finding is not under challenge before
us, certainly, at the instance of the first respondent in the captioned
appeals and hence, the same need not be considered any further. But
then, even after holding thus, the High Court went on to consider 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 WP No.26990 of 2021 as
also WP No.5441/2022 were allowed. Resultantly, the registration of
the respective FIR and filing of the chargesheetswere held as vitiated
for the absence of consent from the State of Telangana to the CBI,
to register the FIRs and conduct investigation. It is aggrieved by
the quashment of such proceedings viz., registration of FIR, filing
138
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of charge sheet and all further proceedings involved in CC No.13
of 2022 and CC No.37 of 2020 (now CC No.15/2022) as per the
impugned common judgment that the appellant herein preferred the
captioned appeals.
9.
Heard Shri M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that the
impugned common judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and
liable to be interfered with, for its failure to take into consideration
various crucial factors in their true perspective. It is, inter alia,
contended that Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 dated 26.05.2014
was not properly considered and appreciated appropriately. It is
submitted that the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 would clarify the
position that all 'laws' applicable to the undivided State of Andhra
Pradesh as on 01.06.2014 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. 02.06.2014, despite the bifurcation
of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till altered, repealed or
amended. It is also the contention that even after bifurcation of
Andhra Pradesh, the S.P., CBI, Hyderabad and office of S.P. CBI
Hyderabad were not deprived of their identity as 'Special Police
Force' and to drive home the point the learned Additional Solicitor
General, relied on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab
and Others v. Balbir Singh& Ors.1 It is also contended that the
High Court had failed to appreciate the fact that as on the date of
the registration of the FIR involved in the captioned appeals there
was consent to CBI in terms of the provisions of the Section 6 of
the DSPE Act. It is furthermore contended that the High Court had
gone wrong in holding that G.O.M.S. Nos.158 dated 28.11.2014, 67
dated 01.06.2016, No.168 dated 05.12.2017 and dated 03.08.2018
extending the general consent as orders pertaining to the State of
Andhra Pradesh only.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the appeals
stoutly resisted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
and submitted that the entire sequence of events including the
trapping, registration of the FIRs, filing of the chargesheets and
1
1975 INSC 238 : [1976] 2 SCR 115 : (1976) 3 SCC 242
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
139
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
taking cognizance etc. were considered by the High Court ultimately
to arrive at the conclusion that the registration of the FIRs as also
filing of the chargesheets in the cases on hand, are vitiated by law.
It is further submitted that since such irregularities would go into the
root of the matter denude jurisdiction. Hence, the High Court was
right in quashing the respective FIRs and all further proceedings in
pursuance thereof.
12. Before considering the rival contentions to examine their tenability it is
only appropriate to scan the impugned judgment to find out the reasons
specifically assigned by the High Court in coming to the conclusion
that the registration of the FIR and the filing of the chargesheet in the
cases on hand are vitiated in law. Such a consideration would reveal
that the High Court considered the questions as to 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.
13. Obviously, the High Court interpreted Section 4 of the PC Act and
the decision of this Court in C.B.I., A.H.D., Patna v. Braj Bhushan
Prasad,2 and such other cases to come to the conclusion that
the Court of the Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad got no
jurisdiction to try the offences involved in the cases on hand under
the provisions of the PC Act. The High Court has also arrived at
the conclusion that there was no consent required in terms of the
provisions under Section 6 of the DSPE Act to register and investigate
the offences against the Central Government employees on the date
of registration of the FIR in the cases on hand.
14. The impugned judgment would reveal that the High Court firstly
considered the power of the CBI sans consent of the Government
of Andhra Pradesh to register FIR on the date(s) of registration of
the subject FIRs and further to investigate them. After referring to
2
2001 INSC 485 : [2001] Supp. 3 SCR 627 : (2001) 9 SCC 432
140
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Section 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, it was held that they would make
it clear that though under Section 5 the Central Government could
extend the area of operation of the said Act in a State it would
be subject to the consent of the State Government concerned.
To fortify the said view the High Court referred to and relied on
the decision of this Court in Fertico Marketing and Investment
Private Limited and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Anr.3 The High Court also took note of the fact that in the cases on
hand the causative incident that led to the registration of the FIRs
occurred in districts, Kurnool and Anantpur respectively, within the
State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court has also taken note of the fact
that investigation was conducted by the CBI and chargesheets were
submitted thereafter in the Special Court for CBI Cases at Hyderabad
and thereafter, that Court took cognizance of the offence(s). Whether
such actions are legal or of the nature which would go into the root
of the matter to vitiate the proceedings, were considered taking note
of various factors and facts. The High Court considered the facts
that the A.P. Reorganisation Act came into force on 02.06.2014 and
thereafter, general consent was given only by the State of Andhra
Pradesh as per GOMS No.158 dated 28.11.2014 and then by GOMS
No.67 dated 01.06.2016 and yet again by GOMS No.184 dated
05.12.2017 and 109 dated 03.08.2018 to come to the conclusion
that as on the date(s) of registration of the subject FIRs there was
no power vested with the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana to
register crime in regard to the offence taken place in Kurnool as also
in Anantapur in the State of Andhra Pradesh and also to conduct
investigation thereon. It is also evident that the High Court arrived
at the conclusion that GOMS 88 dated 07.08.2012 by which CBI
Court at Hyderabad was given the power to exercise jurisdiction
over the districts in Telangana as also Rayalaseema Districts of
Andhra Pradesh namely, Chittoor, Ananthapur, Kadappa and Kurnool
ceased to be in force after the State Reorganisation Act came into
force on 02.06.2014 and therefore, the Court of the Special Judge
for CBI Cases, Hyderabad ceased to have jurisdiction to deal with
the cases under the PC Act in respect of the aforementioned four
districts falling within the Rayalaseema regions of State of Andhra
3
2020 INSC 645 : [2020] 12 SCR 956 : (2021) 2 SCC 525
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
141
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
Pradesh. It was also held that in such circumstances the Court of
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad could not have entertained
the cases after 02.06.2014 as the required notification under the PC
Act was not issued subsequent to 02.06.2014, the appointed day
under the A.P. Reorganisation Act.
15. Having gone through the reasons that made the High Court to
come to such conclusions as mentioned and to quash the subject
FIRs and the subsequent proceedings thereon, we will consider
the contentions raised to mount attack against the same. As noted
hereinbefore, the core contention of the appellant is that the High
Court had failed to consider Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 dated
26.05.2014 and its true import. Indeed, the said circular was issued
in terms of Section 3 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act. Para 2 of the
said circular reads thus:-
"2. In this connection, it 1s stated that "law" as defined in
section 2(f) of the Act is as follows :-
(f) 'law' includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation,
order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument
having, immediately before the appointed day, the force
of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of
Andhra Pradesh"
16. Clauses (i) to (iii) of Paragraph 6 of the said circular are also relevant
in the circumstances and they read thus:
"(i) all the laws, which were applicable to the undivided
State of Andhra Pradesh, as on 1-6-2014, would continue
to apply to the new States i.e., State of Telangana and
State of Andhra Pradesh created Dy the Central Act, with
effect from 2-6-2014 notwithstanding the bifurcation of the
erstwhile Pradesh;
(ii) to facilitate their application in respect of the State
of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, the
appropriate Government may, before the expiration of
two years from 2-6-2014, by order, make such adaptions
and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal
or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and
thereupon,
142
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iii) every such law as adapted or modified as above, will
continue till such time it altered, repealed or amended by
a competent Legislature or other competent authority, in
the respective State."
17. In contextual situation it is relevant to refer to the decision of this
Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and Ors.
v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd. and Ors.4 This Court
was considering the question of continuity of laws in force in the
erstwhile State in the new States carved out of erstwhile State with
reference to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. It was held that
States reorganisation legislations must be construed in the light of
the unusual situation created by the creation of a new State and
the object sought to be achieved. It was held therein further that the
laws which were applicable to the undivided State of Bihar 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 Bihar and creation of the new
State of Jharkhand. They would continue in force until and unless
altered, repealed or amended, it was further held.
18. It is in the light of the ratio of the aforesaid decision and the wide
definition given to the term 'law' under paragraph 2 of the circular
dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of the AP Reorganisation
Act, that the effect of GOMS No.88 dated 07.08.2012 and such
other Government orders or other instruments in force and brought
into force, have to be looked into while considering the questions
involved in instant cases. In terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the PC Act
only a Special Judge designated as such by notification, by a State
or Central Government would have the power to entertain cases
under the provisions of the PC Act. Indisputably, as per GOMS No.88
dated 07.08.2012 the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh notified the
CBI Court at Hyderabad to exercise jurisdiction over the districts in
Telangana as also in Rayalaseema Districts of AP namely, Chittoor,
Anandpur, Kadappa, and Kurnool to try offences under the PC
Act. The effect of the said GO dated 07.08.2012 and some other
Government orders, hereinafter to be referred, have to be looked
into in the light of Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014, as stated earlier.
4
2004 INSC 378 : [2004] Supp. 2 SCR 633 : (2004) 6 SCC 689
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
143
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
19. 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.
20. Now, we will refer to GORT No.1247, Home (SC.A Department)
dated 14.05.1990 whereunder general consent for investigation by
the CBI in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh was accorded under
Section 6 of the DSPE Act to exercise powers and jurisdiction under
the said Act. It, in so far as relevant, reads thus:-
"Under Section-6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of 1946), the Governor of
Andhra Pradesh hereby accord general consent to all
the members of Delhi Special/ Establishment to / Police
exercise the powers and jurisdiction under the said act
in the State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of the
offences mentioned hereunder against (i) Private Persons
for alleged offences committed whether acting separately
or in conjunction with Central Government/undertaking
employees and in case of State Govt. employees upto First
Gazetted level when acting along with or in conjunction
with private persons or Central Govt. employees. However,
in case of State Government employees from 2nd level
gazetted posts sitting or former legislators, Members of
Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly (even
Ministers, Chairmen of Corporation etc.) the CBI shall
obtain prior consent of the State Government in each case".
21. In continuation of the GORT No.1247, Home (SC.A Department)
dated 14.05.1990, the general consent of Government of Andhra
Pradesh to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the DSPE Act was
accorded, rather, extended as per subsequent Govt. orders such as
144
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
GOMS No.477, Home, "SC.A Department" dated 18.06.1994, GOMS
No.158, Home, "SC.A Department" dated 28.11.2014, GOMS No.67,
Home, "SC.A Department" dated 01.06.2016, GOMS No.184,Home,
"SC.A Department" dated 05.12.2017 and GOMS No.109 Home,
"SC.A Department" dated 03.08.2018. Obviously, under the said
Government orders the order granting general consent as has been
mentioned in 14.05.1990 was extended within the limits of Andhra
Pradesh. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that
under such Govt. orders according general consent to exercise the
powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act against private persons for
alleged offences whether acting separately or in conjunction with
Central Govt./undertaking employees and State Govt. employees
upto first gazetted level, to all members of DSPE. This cannot be
construed or understood to mean that employees of the Central
Government/Central Government undertaking and State Government
employees up to first gazetted level are beyond the reach of the CBI
and only private persons acting separately or in conjunction with such
categories of employees alone can be proceeded against. It is also
to be noted that even according to the High Court in the impugned
judgment, GOMS dt. 07.08.2012 issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh CBI Court at Hyderabad was given the power to exercise
jurisdiction over Rayalaseema districts of Andhra Pradesh, namely,
Chittoor, Anantpur, Kadappa and Kurnool to try cases registered
under the PC Act and the said provision continued thereafter by
subsequently issued Govt. orders. In view of the impact of para 2(f)
and clauses (i) to (ii) under para 6 such notification or circulars which
were in force prior to the bifurcation or modified subsequently, in
the absence of repeal or amendment as relates the subject matter
involved thereunder within the limits of State of Telangana should
be presumed to exist within the limits of State of Telangana and
therefore, the finding of the High Court all such 'laws' pertain only
to the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be the correct law and the
legal fiction should be that such laws would be in force in the new
State unless altered or repealed or amended by it, in accordance
with law. If in the light of the aforesaid Govt. orders especially dated
26.05.2014, 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
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
145
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
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.
22. In the light of the discussion as above and construction of the Govt.
orders it can only be held that 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. Now,
the transfer of the cases concerned subsequent to the CBI Policy
Division order regarding the re-defining the territorial jurisdiction of
CBI, Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam branches dated 28.03.2019
and issuance of notification by the High Court of Telangana vide
ROC No.334/E-1/2008 dated 03.09.2019 and the transfer of CC
Nos.35 of 2020 and 37 of 2020 to the Court of the Special Judge
for CBI Cases, Kurnool were held as in accordance with law by the
High Court. In such circumstances and in the light of the conclusion
already arrived at,the terms of the provisions under circular memo
dated 26.05.2014 all "laws" applicable to the undivided State of Andhra
Pradesh on 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the new States,
namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
despite the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till
such time they were altered, repealed or amended.
23. Another aspect that skipped the attention of the High Court, which
will independent of the aforesaid consideration and conclusion on
the Government orders, cloth the CBI with the power to register and
investigate the offence alleged against the first respondent in the
captioned appeals.
24. A. Satish Kumar, the first respondent in the former appeal was the
accused in CC No.13 of 2022. He was working as Superintendent in
Central Excise at Nandyal (Kurnool) district. Sri Challa Sreenivasulu
was working as Accounts Assistant in the office of the Senior Divisional
Financial Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal. The offence
alleged against both of them was under Section 7 of the PC Act,
which is a Central Act. Bearing in mind the aspects we will consider
the challenge against the impugned judgment.
146
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
25. Irrespective of the place of posting, the aforesaid factual position
would go onto show that they 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
in view of the decisions of this Court in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of
Bihar and Ors.5 and in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt.
Ltd.'s case (supra).
26. In Kanwal Tanju's case (supra), after extracting Section 5 and 6 of
DSPE Act, in para 19 thereof, this Court held thus: -
"19. Sections 5 and 6 of the 1946 Act read thus: -
5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special
police establishment to other areas.