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

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 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 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]