Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on Monday (January 19) held that State police authorities can register, investigate and file a charge sheet for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act even when the accused is a Central Government employee, within the State where the offence is alleged. The Court dismissed a petition contesting a State Anti-Corruption Bureau investigation and the charge sheet on the ground that CBI approval had not been obtained. It clarified that prior permission or consent of the CBI is not required before State police register such a case, and that the charge sheet cannot be treated as invalid only for want of CBI consent.

The proceedings arose from a Special Leave Petition filed by a Central Government employee challenging the jurisdiction of the State Anti-Corruption Bureau to register and investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The dispute originated from a criminal case registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan alleging corruption-related offences. The petitioner contended that since he was a Central Government employee, only the Central Bureau of Investigation was competent to investigate the matter and that the State Anti-Corruption Bureau lacked authority to proceed without prior approval or consent from the CBI.

Also Read: Motive Mainly Matters In Circumstantial Cases; Direct Evidence Like Dying Declaration Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court

Two legal questions were raised before the High Court, namely whether the State Anti-Corruption Bureau could register and investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees, and whether a charge-sheet filed by the State agency without obtaining CBI consent was valid in law. The High Court answered both questions against the petitioner, holding that the State agency had jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this finding, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition seeking interference with the High Court’s judgment.

The Court noted that “the High Court after due consideration of the position of law and a review of various decisions of this Court and the provisions of law, has recorded a categorical finding that the ACB of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register the criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 despite the fact that the accused is an employee of the Central Government.”

The Bench recorded that “the Delhi Special Police Establishment 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.” Referring to the scheme of criminal investigation, the Court stated that “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 Cr.P.C cannot be displaced.”

While analysing Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court observed that “the Act does not specifically envisage a separate procedure for conducting investigation” and that offences under the Act “can be investigated into by the State agency or by the Central agency or by any police agency,” subject to the rank of the investigating officer. The Bench further recorded that “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.”

Also Read: Aadhaar Facial Authentication And GPS-Enabled Attendance System For Medical College Faculty Not Violative Of Right To Privacy: Patna High Court

The Court also relied upon earlier precedent A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration, recording that “the scheme of the DSPE Act seems to be only permissive or empowering, intended merely to enable the Delhi Special Police Establishment also to investigate into the offences specified… without impairing any other law empowering the police authorities to investigate offences.”

On an overall assessment, the Court concluded that “we find no error, not to speak of any error of law, in the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Advocate; Mr. Amit Ambawat, Advocate; Ms. Sruthi Iyer, Advocate; Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Riya Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Rupali Panwar, Advocate; Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Shivmangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advocate

Case Title: Nawal Kishore Meena @ N.K. Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 71
Case Number: S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 492 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma