State's Anti-Corruption Bureau Can Investigate And Prosecute Central Government Employees For Corruption — CBI Consent Not Required: Supreme Court

"Section 17 Of The PC Act Does Not Exclude Or Prevent The State Police Or Special Agency Of The State From Registering A Crime Against Central Government Employees", Supreme Court of India has settled a significant question of law under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), holding that the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has full jurisdiction to register a case, investigate, and file a chargesheet against a Central Government employee for offences of bribery and corruption — and that neither the prior consent of the CBI nor any approval from the Central Government is required for the State agency to do so.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma affirmed the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and declared that the view that only the CBI can prosecute Central Government employees for corruption is "incorrect" in law.

The petitioner, a Central Government employee posted in Rajasthan, was booked by the State's Anti-Corruption Bureau under the PC Act. The Rajasthan High Court, in SBCRMP No. 5157/2024, answered both questions of law — regarding jurisdiction of the ACB and validity of the chargesheet filed without CBI consent — against the accused. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP, essentially arguing that CBI alone had the authority to investigate and prosecute Central Government employees under the PC Act.

"It Is Incorrect To Say That It Is Only The CBI Who Could Have Instituted The Prosecution" : Supreme Court Settles The Law

The Supreme Court began its analysis by tracing the legislative architecture governing the interplay between the CBI and State police. It noted that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, enacted in 1946, was enlarged in scope to cover all departments of the Government of India, with jurisdiction extendable to States only with the consent of the concerned State Government. The CBI, constituted under the DSPE Act by a Ministry of Home resolution dated 01.04.1963, was divided into specialized divisions in 1987 — including an Anti-Corruption Division. The Court noted the existing administrative arrangement under which CBI investigates corruption by Central Government employees while State ACBs handle State Government employees. However, the Court held emphatically that this arrangement is one of convenience and not one of legal exclusivity.

CrPC Is The Parent Statute — Special Law Cannot Displace It Unless It Expressly Provides A Separate Procedure For Investigation

The Court provided a foundational exposition of the relationship between the CrPC and special statutes that is essential reading for criminal law practitioners. It held that Section 156(1) of the CrPC authorises any officer in charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable offence falling within the local jurisdiction of that station, without any Magistrate's order. Crucially, Section 156(2) provides an additional shield — 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."

Reading Section 4(2) of the CrPC, the Court held that all offences under any special law shall be investigated and tried under CrPC provisions, "subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating." The Court laid down a critical principle: "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 CrPC cannot be displaced. In other words, the existence of a special law by itself cannot be taken to exclude the operation of CrPC. Unless the special law expressly or impliedly provides a separate provision for investigation, the general provision under Section 156 of CrPC shall prevail."

Section 17 Of PC Act Governs Rank Of Investigating Officer — Not Which Agency Can Investigate; ACB Is Also A Wing Of State Police

Turning to the PC Act itself, the Court subjected Section 17 — the provision governing who may investigate PC Act offences — to close scrutiny. Section 17 mandates that no police officer below a certain rank shall investigate any offence under the Act without Magistrate's order. The Court decisively held that this provision addresses only the rank qualification of the investigating officer and does not in any manner exclude State agencies from investigating Central Government employees. "Section 17 does not exclude or prevent 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 employees," the Court declared.

The Court further observed that the division of investigative responsibility between CBI and State ACBs is a practical administrative arrangement, not a legal one: "It is for convenience and to avoid duplication of work that the Central Bureau of Investigation is entrusted with the task of investigation of cases of corruption against Central Government employees and the Anti-Corruption Bureau is entrusted with cases against State Government employees." The Court also noted that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau is itself a wing of the State Police and the offences under the PC Act being cognizable in nature, can therefore be investigated by the State Police or VACB — with the only rider being that the investigating officer must be of the rank specified in Section 17 of the PC Act.

DSPE Act Is "Only Permissive Or Empowering" — It Does Not Divest State Police Of Their Jurisdiction : Supreme Court Reaffirms 1973 Constitution

The Court drew upon a long line of precedents to fortify its conclusion. It recalled the landmark ruling in A.C. Sharma vs. Delhi Administration, (1973) 1 SCC 726, where it was 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." The DSPE Act, the Court reiterated, "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 Court also expressed its agreement with concurrent views of the Madhya Pradesh High Court — both a Division Bench in Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar vs. State of MP, (2001 SCC OnLine MP 83) and a Full Bench in Arvind Jain vs. State of MP, (2017 SCC OnLine MP 1294) — as well as the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.S.R. Somayaji (Dr.) vs. State through CBI, (2001 SCC OnLine AP 1196), all of which had held that State police agencies can validly investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees posted in their respective States. The Court additionally cited the Kerala High Court's recent ruling in State of Kerala vs. Navaneeth Krishnan, (2023 SCC OnLine Ker 5730), which had followed the same line.

Finding no error, "not to speak of any error of law," in the Rajasthan High Court's judgment, the Court dismissed the SLP. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 19.01.2026