The Supreme Court has ruled that State Anti-Corruption Bureaus have the legal authority to investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court clarified that such investigative power is not exclusive to the CBI and can be exercised by State agencies within their territorial jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of India has clearly held that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, committed by Central Government employees within the territorial limits of a State, can legally be investigated by the State Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Court clarified that such power is not exclusively vested in the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The Supreme Court was hearing a challenge to a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court, which had upheld the authority of the State Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR, conduct investigation and file a charge-sheet against a Central Government employee under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the Special Leave Petition and found no legal error in the High Court’s reasoning.
The Bench observed:
“The PC Act does not specifically envisage a separate procedure for conducting investigation. The offences under the PC Act can be investigated by the State agency, by the Central agency or by any police agency, as can be seen from Section 17 of the said Act, with the qualification that the police officer shall be of a particular rank. 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”.
Advocate Manish Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Shivmangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General, represented the State of Rajasthan.
The case arose after a Central Government employee challenged criminal proceedings initiated by the Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner argued that cases involving Central Government employees could only be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and that the State agency had no jurisdiction.
Two main legal questions were considered by the High Court. First, whether the State Anti-Corruption Bureau has the authority to investigate offences under the PC Act against Central Government employees.
Second, whether a charge-sheet filed without the consent or approval of the CBI is legally valid. Both questions were answered against the petitioner, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
While examining the matter, the Supreme Court analysed the scheme of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court explained that the CrPC is the main law governing investigation, inquiry and trial of criminal offences. Under Sections 4 and 156 of the Code, cognizable offences can be investigated by the police unless a special law clearly provides otherwise.
ALSO READ: [Valmiki Corporation Case] Karnataka HC Stays FIR Against ED Officers Corruption Probe
The Bench noted that although the PC Act is a special statute, Section 17 of the Act only specifies the rank of the police officer who can investigate offences under the Act. It does not create an exclusive right in favour of any particular investigating agency.
The Court held that Section 17 does not bar the State Police or specialised State agencies from registering and investigating corruption cases against Central Government employees, so long as the investigation is conducted by an officer of the prescribed rank.
The Court further explained the practical arrangement followed in corruption cases and stated:
“It is for convenience and to avoid duplication of work that the Central Bureau of Investigation a specialised investigating agency under the Special Police Establishment – is entrusted with the task of investigation of the cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of Central Government and its Undertakings and the Anti Corruption Bureau – a specialised investigating agency of the State – is entrusted with the task of investigation of the cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of State Government and its Undertakings.”
Referring to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the Supreme Court clarified that the law is permissive in nature and does not take away the inherent powers of State police authorities to investigate offences under other valid laws.
The Bench relied on earlier precedent, including A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration, which held that the DSPE Act does not impliedly prohibit investigations by State agencies.
The Court also took note of similar views earlier expressed by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh.
It observed that offences under the PC Act are cognizable in nature and that Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureaus, functioning as wings of the State Police, qualify as “police stations” under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Agreeing fully with the reasoning adopted by the Rajasthan High Court, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no jurisdictional defect either in the investigation or in the filing of the charge-sheet by the State Anti-Corruption Bureau.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not provide for any exclusive investigating agency even in cases involving Central Government employees.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: No Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry Before Filing FIR in Corruption Cases
State Anti-Corruption agencies are competent to register and investigate such offences in accordance with Section 17 of the Act. Finding no error of law in the impugned judgment, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and disposed of all pending applications.
For the petitioner, Advocates Manish Aggarwal, Amit Ambawat, Sruthi Iyer, Shilpa Sharma, Riya Sharma, Rupali Panwar, Vishal Arun Mishra and AOR appeared. The respondents were represented by Shivmangal Sharma, Additional Advocate General, along with Puneet Parihar, Advocate.
Case Title:
Nawal Kishore Meena @ N.K. Meena v. State of Rajasthan
(Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 71).
Read Judgement:
Read More Reports On Anti-Corruption Bureau
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
