The Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision quashing ACB FIRs, calling it a “travesty of justice” rooted in a hyper-technical approach, and upheld the continuity of ACB jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reinforcing the continuity of law after state bifurcation, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had quashed multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the High Court adopted a “hyper-technical approach” in holding that the ACB office at Vijayawada lacked jurisdiction to register FIRs after the bifurcation of the State.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: No Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry Before Filing FIR in Corruption Cases
Allowing the appeals filed by the Joint Director (Rayalaseema), ACB, Andhra Pradesh, the Apex Court restored criminal proceedings that had been stalled for several years.
The Court observed:
“In our considered view, the approach of the High Court is nothing but a travesty of justice.”
The Bench emphasized that quashing FIRs at the threshold, without identifying an alternative competent authority, effectively derails corruption investigations and undermines public interest.
Background
The case arose from a batch of FIRs registered between 2016 and 2020 by the ACB Central Investigation Unit, Vijayawada, following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and residual Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
After bifurcation, ACB offices were administratively shifted from Hyderabad to Vijayawada.
The accused challenged the FIRs, arguing that:
- The Vijayawada ACB office was not specifically notified as a “police station” under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
- In the absence of a fresh Gazette notification, the FIRs were without jurisdiction.
The High Court accepted this argument and quashed the FIRs.
ALSO READ: [Valmiki Corporation Case] Karnataka HC Stays FIR Against ED Officers Corruption Probe
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed interpretation of Section 2(s) CrPC, which defines a “police station”.
The Court clarified that:
- Section 2(s) refers to both a “post” and a “place”
- A police station need not always be a specifically notified building
- Even a post held by a police officer can constitute a police station
The Court held:
“There need not be a specific place to be declared as a police station, as even a post being held by a police officer would constitute a police station.”
The Bench placed heavy reliance on Sections 100, 101, and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which ensure continuity of laws following state reorganisation.
Key findings:
- The definition of “law” under Section 2(f) includes notifications, government orders, and circulars
- G.O.Ms. No. 268 dated 12.09.2003, which declared ACB offices as police stations with statewide jurisdiction, continued to operate post-bifurcation
- No fresh adoption or notification was necessary unless the law was repealed or amended
Justice Sundresh observed:
“The State of Andhra Pradesh continues to be the same State. What has been done is merely carving out a new State from its territories.”
The Supreme Court also rejected the High Court’s view that G.O.Ms. No. 137 dated 14.09.2022, which clarified the status of the Vijayawada ACB office, could not apply retrospectively.
The Court held that:
- The 2022 order was clarificatory in nature
- It merely reaffirmed the legal position already flowing from the Reorganisation Act
- Clarificatory orders do not involve retrospective application
The Bench relied on several landmark decisions, including:
- State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1976)
- Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Swarn Rekha Cokes & Coals (2004)
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Association (2019)
- State, CBI v. A. Satish Kumar (2025)
The Court reiterated that laws applicable to an undivided State continue to apply to successor States until altered, repealed, or amended.
Supreme Court Directions
While restoring the FIRs, the Supreme Court issued balanced directions:
- ACB may proceed with investigations
- Final reports to be filed within six months
- No coercive steps or arrests against the accused
- The accused must cooperate with the investigation
- The High Court is barred from entertaining further challenges to FIRs or investigations
- The accused may raise other legal objections only after the investigation concludes
Case Title:
The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc. SLP (CRIMINAL) NOS. 14321-14333 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Corruption FIRs
