State Police Can Investigate Central Govt Employees for Corruption: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that state police authorities are legally empowered to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) even when the accused is a central government employee, clarifying that such cases do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The apex court further held that no prior consent or approval of the CBI is required for a state police agency to register a first information report (FIR) or file a charge sheet against a central government employee. Proceedings initiated by a state’s anti-corruption agency cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that the CBI was not involved, it said.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld a Rajasthan High Court judgment that had refused to quash a corruption case registered by the Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against a central government employee. The court held that the state ACB had jurisdiction to investigate offences under the PC Act committed within the state’s territorial limits, irrespective of the accused being employed by the Centre.

The Supreme Court was hearing a special leave petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s October 2015 order, which had decided two questions of law against the petitioner, Nawal Kishore Meena. These included whether the state ACB could investigate an alleged corruption offence involving a central government employee within Rajasthan, and whether a charge sheet filed by the state agency without CBI approval was legally valid.

Dismissing the petition, the bench said the High Court had taken the “correct view” in holding that it was erroneous to contend that only the CBI could institute prosecution in such cases.

Examining the statutory framework, the court noted that while the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946—under which the CBI was constituted—authorises the central agency to investigate corruption cases involving central government employees, it does not strip state police forces of their powers to investigate cognisable offences under other applicable laws.

“The scheme of the DSPE Act is permissive or enabling in nature,” the bench observed, adding that it merely enables the CBI to investigate specified offences and does not impair the jurisdiction or competence of state police authorities.

The court also underscored that under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an officer in charge of a police station is empowered to investigate a cognisable offence without prior permission of a magistrate, and such investigations cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of authority.

Interpreting the PC Act, the bench said that although it is a special law dealing with bribery and corruption, it does not lay down an exclusive investigative procedure. Section 17 of the Act, the court noted, only prescribes the rank of the officer authorised to conduct investigations.

“Section 17 does not exclude or prevent the State Police or a special agency of the State from registering or investigating offences of bribery and corruption against Central Government employees,” the court said.

The bench clarified that while, as a matter of administrative convenience, corruption cases involving central government employees are often handled by the CBI and those involving state employees by state vigilance agencies, this practice does not create a legal bar on state police exercising jurisdiction.

Relying on its 1973 judgment in *A.C. Sharma vs Delhi Administration*, the Supreme Court reiterated that the existence of the DSPE Act does not impliedly oust the powers of regular police authorities to investigate corruption offences under the PC Act.

The court also noted that several high courts, including the Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, have consistently held that state police agencies are competent to investigate corruption cases against central government employees posted within their territorial jurisdiction.

Finding no legal infirmity in the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the charge sheet filed by the Rajasthan ACB could not be invalidated merely because the CBI had neither granted approval nor conducted the investigation.