THE STATE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusA. SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

                   [2025] 1 S.C.R. 130 : 2025 INSC 11

             The State, Central Bureau of Investigation
                                 v.
                      A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2024)
                                02 January 2025
                [C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Merely because a Central Government employee works within the
       territory of a particular State, whether the CBI requires consent
       from the concerned State Government to register an FIR against
       such Central Government employee in connection with commission
       of an offence under a Central Act; whether the High Court was
       justified in quashing the FIRs and the subsequent proceedings
       against the respondents holding that the same were vitiated in
       view of the lack of consent and the lack of notification for a Special
       Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

                                   Headnotes†
       Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – ss.6,
       5 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 4 – Andhra
       Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 – s.3 – FIRs under s.7, PC Act
       were registered against the respondents, Central Government
       employees working in the State of Andhra Pradesh – FIRs and
       subsequent proceedings were challenged contending that after
       the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into the State
       of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, for the CBI to
       register and investigate FIR within the newly formed State of
       Andhra Pradesh, consent of the Government of Andra Pradesh
       was necessary as per the DSPE Act – High Court quashed the
       FIRs and the subsequent proceedings – Sustainability:
       Held: Not sustainable – Much prior to the bifurcation of the State
       of Andhra Pradesh into two States in 2014, the Government of
       erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
       14.05.1990, gave general consent for investigation by the CBI in
       the entire State of Andhra Pradesh – In continuation thereof, the
       general consent of Government of Andhra Pradesh to exercise

* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                              131

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

     powers and jurisdiction under the DSPE Act was accorded, rather,
     extended within the limits of Andhra Pradesh as per subsequent
     Govt. orders of 2014, 206, 2017 and 2018 – There cannot be
     any doubt w.r.t the fact that under such Govt. orders according
     general consent to exercise the powers and jurisdiction under
     DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether
     acting separately or in conjunction with Central Govt./undertaking
     employees and State Govt. employees upto first gazetted level, to
     all members of DSPE – This cannot mean that employees of the
     Central Government/ Central Government undertaking and State
     Government employees up to first gazetted level are beyond the
     reach of the CBI and only private persons acting separately or
     in conjunction with such categories of employees alone can be
     proceeded against – Respondents were Central Govt. employees/
     Central Govt. Undertaking employees and allegedly committed
     serious offence under PC Act, a Central Act – Furthermore, the
     1963 Resolution of Ministry of Home Affairs establishing the CBI
     provides its function in cases where public servants under the control
     of the Central Government are involved either themselves or with
     the State Government servants and/or other person – Impugned
     judgment set aside – FIRs restored. [Paras 5, 21, 28, 30]

     Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 – Prevention
     of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.4, 7 – FIRs in question were
     challenged by the respondents on the ground that they were
     registered by the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana whereas
     the alleged offence in the FIRs had taken place in Kurnool
     and Ananthapur districts which were and still, within the
     State of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation and that the Court
     at Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction to entertain the cases –
     Laws applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, if
     continued to apply to the new States of Telangana and Andhra
     Pradesh despite bifurcation:
     Held: Yes – High Court erred in holding that there was no
     notification issued conferring the status of Special Court in terms
     of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court, Hyderabad – Even
     according to the High Court, GOMS dt. 07.08.2012 issued by the
     State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI Court at Hyderabad was given the
     power to exercise jurisdiction over Rayalaseema districts of Andhra
     Pradesh, namely, Chittoor, Anantpur, Kadappa and Kurnool to try
     cases registered under the PC Act and this continued thereafter
132                                                            [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       by subsequently issued Govt. orders – In view of the impact of
       para 2(f) and clauses (i) to (ii) under para 6, such notification or
       circulars which were in force prior to the bifurcation or modified
       subsequently, in the absence of repeal or amendment as relates
       the subject matter involved thereunder within the limits of State of
       Telangana should be presumed to exist within the limits of State of
       Telangana – Thus, the finding of the High Court that all such ‘laws’
       pertain only to the State of Andhra Pradesh is not correct and the
       legal fiction should be that such laws would be in force in the new
       State unless altered or repealed or amended by it, in accordance
       with law – Thus, the terms of the provisions under circular memo
       dated 26.05.2014, all “laws” applicable to the undivided State of
       Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the
       new States, i.e., the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
       Pradesh despite the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra
       Pradesh till such time they were altered, repealed or amended.
       [Paras 21, 22]

                                Case Law Cited
       Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2020 INSC 357 : 2020
       SCC OnLine SC 395; Fertico Marketing and Investment Private
       Limited and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. [2020]
       12 SCR 956 : (2021) 2 SCC 525 – relied on.
       State of Punjab and Others v. Balbir Singh & Ors. [1976] 2 SCR
       115 : (1976) 3 SCC 242; C.B.I., A.H.D., Patna v. Braj Bhushan
       Prasad [2001] Supp. 3 SCR 627 : (2001) 9 SCC 432; Commissioner
       of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and Ors. v. Swarn Rekha Cokes
       and Coals (P) Ltd. and Ors. [2004] Supp. 2 SCR 633 : (2004) 6
       SCC 689 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Andhra Pradesh
       Re-Organisation Act, 2014; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

                               List of Keywords
       DSPE Act; General consent for investigation by the CBI; General
       consent to exercise the powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act;
       Bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh; Erstwhile undivided
       State of Andhra Pradesh; State of Telangana; New States; Consent
       from the concerned State Government; Commission of offence
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                             133

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

     under a Central Act; Lack of consent; Employees of the Central
     Government/Central Government undertaking; CBI; Policy division
     order; Territorial jurisdiction of CBI; Government orders; CBI Court;
     Special Court; Lack of notification for a Special Court; FIR; Further
     proceedings; Quashing; Special Court in terms of Section 4 of the
     PC Act; Repealed; Amended; Altered; ‘law’.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     898 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2023 of the High Court
     of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WP No. 26990 of 2021
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     K.M. Natraj, S.V. Raju, A.S.Gs., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Vatsal
     Joshi, Ms. Sairica Raju, Shantanu Sharma, Zoheb Hussain, Sanjay
     Kr. Tyagi, Annam Venkatesh, S.S. Rebello, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi,
     Anirudh Sharma-ii, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ms. Mary Mitzy, B Ravikiran Singh, Oleander D Singh, Ashutosh
     Gupta, Ashutosh Jha, D. Bharat Kumar, Aman Shukla, Amit Kumar,
     Ms. Ekta Swarup, Gopal Jha, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki
     Gowtham, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, K V Girish Chowdary, T Vijaya
     Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Archita Nigam, Meeran Maqbool, Advs. for
     the Respondents.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1.   The self-same appellant, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation
     (for short, ‘the CBI’) calls in question the common judgment dated
     13.04.2023 in W.P. Nos.26990 of 2021 and 5441 of 2022 passed by
     the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Writ Petition No.26990 of 2021
     was filed by the first respondent in the former appeal and Writ Petition
134                                                             [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       No.5441 of 2022 was filed by the first respondent in the latter appeal.
       As observed by the High Court in the impugned common judgment,
       common question(s) of law arose for consideration in both the cases
       in identical circumstances and the High Court took W.P. No.26990 of
       2022 as the lead case. Consequent to the consideration of the legal
       and factual position, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition
       and for the same reasoning allowed W.P. No.5441 of 2022 as per
       the impugned common judgment.
2.     Before dealing with the precise question(s) of law involved in the
       captioned appeals, it is appropriate to refer, succinctly, to the factual
       background that ultimately led to the filing of the Writ Petitions and
       their culmination in the impugned common judgment, as under:-
       FIR No.10 (A)/2017 was registered for offences under Section 7 of
       the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) against
       the first respondent in Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2024 while he
       was working as Superintendent, Central Excise, Nandyal, (Kurnool),
       District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The allegation was that he
       demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of ₹10,000/- from the
       original complainant, Sri. Arif, who was a contractor, on 09.05.2017
       for issuance of licence surrender certificate qua Excise Registration
       Certificate No. AHC PC 1141 KEM 001.
3.     In the latter appeal, against the first respondent therein, FIR
       No.RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD was registered under Section 7 of the PC
       Act. The allegation was that while working as Accounts Assistant in
       the office of Senior Divisional Financial Manager, Guntakal, by abusing
       his office as public servant he demanded and obtained ₹15,000/- as
       illegal gratification from the original complainant therein, Sri. C. Dorrai
       Rajulu Naidu on 20.11.2017 for doing official favour of processing
       contract bills for the months of July, 2017 to September, 2017 and
       also previously sanctioned bills for the month of March to May, 2017
       and June, 2017. In both the cases, after completion of investigation,
       chargesheets were filed before the Court of Principal, Special Judge
       for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. In the case of former appeal, it was so filed
       on 28.12.2017 and in the latter case it was so filed on 29.03.2018.
       The Court took cognizance, in the former case, on 16.07.2018 and
       took on it file as CC No.2/2018 and in the latter case, on taking
       cognizance it was taken on file as CC No.6/2018 on 03.08.2018. On
       28.03.2019, the CBI, policy division order, redefining the territorial
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                         135

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

     jurisdiction of CBI, ACB, Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam branches
     was issued. On 03.09.2019, the High Court of Telangana vide ROC
     No.334/E-1/2008 issued a notification regarding the jurisdiction of
     four Rayalaseema Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, namely,
     Kurnool, Kadappa, Chittoor and Ananthapurand for their inclusion in
     the jurisdiction of CBI Courts Vishakhapatnam by deleting the same
     from the jurisdiction of CBI Courts at Hyderabad.
4.   Earlier, as per the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 (for
     short, ‘the A.P. Re-Organisation Act’), w.e.f. 02.06.2014, the State
     of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated geographically into two States
     namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana.
     Indisputably, despite the birth of two States by such bifurcation the
     High Court of Andhra Pradesh continued to be the common High
     Court for States i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana till December,
     2018. As relates the causative incident which led to the registration
     of the FIR No.10(A)/2017 against the first respondent in the former
     appeal, it occurred within the limits of Kurnool District and that of FIR
     No.RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD it occurred within the limits of Ananthapur,
     both were in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Even after the bifurcation
     those districts remained with the State of Andhra Pradesh. As noticed
     earlier, both the aforesaid FIRs were registered for offences under
     Section 7 of the PC Act at Hyderabad in Telangana State by the CBI,
     ACB Hyderabad and on completion of investigation the CBI filed final
     reports before the Court of Principal, Special Judge for CBI cases,
     Hyderabad and that Court took cognizance of offences based on
     such final reports and took them on file and assigned CC Nos.2/2018
     and 6/2018 respectively. As noted earlier, ROC Nos.334/E-1/2008
     dated 03.09.2019 was issued by the High Court of Telangana, on
     its administrative side, directing to transfer the CBI cases pertaining
     to the districts of Kurnool, Kadappa, Chittoor and Ananthapur of
     Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh to the Court of Special
     Judge for CBI cases at Vishakhapatnam. Accordingly, those cases
     were transferred and re-numbered respectively as CC No.35/2020
     and CC No.37/2020. Still, later as per GOMS No.9 & 10 Law (LA, LA
     & J-Home Court A) Department dated 09.01.2020, IIndSpecial Judge
     for CBI Cases, Vishakhapatnam was shifted from Vishakhapatnam
     to Kurnool. Consequently, CC No.35/2020 was re-numbered as CC
     No.13 of 2022 and CC No.37/2020 was re-numbered as CC No.15
     of 2022, on the files of the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases,
136                                                           [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Kurnool. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the respective first
       respondent in the captioned appeals who were the respective accused
       in CC No.13 of 2022 and CC No.15/2022 moved the aforementioned
       Writ Petitions which culminated in the impugned common judgment
       dated 13.04.2023.
5.     Much prior to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two
       States, as above,the Government of erstwhile undivided State of
       Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 14.05.1990, gave general consent
       for investigation by the CBI in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh.
       Going by the said notification, general consent was accorded under
       Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for
       short, ‘the DSPE Act’) to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the
       said Act in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of
       the offences mentioned thereunder. We will dilate on its impact and
       effect a little later.
6.     Writ Petition No.26990 of 2021 was filed by the first respondent in the
       former appeal mainly seeking to issue a writ order or direction, more
       particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the
       action of conducting trial in CC No.35 of 2020 (later got the number
       of the case as CC No.13/2022), pending on the files of the Court of
       IInd Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vishakhapatnam as illegal
       and to quash the same, raising various grounds. It was contended that
       the A.P. Re-Organisation Act was passed in 2014 and on 02.06.2014
       viz., the appointed day, two States were created by bifurcating the
       erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, namely, State of Andhra Pradesh
       and the State of Telangana and, in the said circumstances, for the CBI
       to register and investigate FIR Nos.10(A)/2017 and RC22(A)/2017-
       CBI/HYD within the limits of the newly formed State of Andhra
       Pradesh, permission from the Government of Andra Pradesh was
       necessary as per the provisions of the ‘DSPE Act’. It was further
       contended that the subject FIRs were registered by the CBI, ACB,
       Hyderabad in Telangana whereas the alleged offence in those FIRs
       had taken place in Kurnool and Ananthapur districts which were and
       still, within the State of Andhra Pradesh, and further that on the dates
       of registration of those FIRs there was no express permission as
       required under Section 6 of the DSPE Act to register them and also
       to investigate the same. Based on such grounds, it was contended
       that the entire investigation and the filing of the charge sheet are
       vitiated and further that the Court at Hyderabad lacks jurisdiction to
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        137

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

     entertain the cases. Furthermore, it was contended that under the
     PC Act, a specific notification was to be issued either by the State
     or by the Central Government designating a Judge to try offences
     thereunder and only the Special Judge could try offences under the
     PC Act cases. It was also the contention of the Writ Petitioner/the
     first respondent that till December 2017, the Government of Andhra
     Pradesh did not accord consent for prosecution of Central Government
     servants under the provisions of the PC Act and therefore, Special
     Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad could not have entertained the
     aforesaid case against him. So also, for the same reasons neither
     CBI Court nor the High Court had jurisdiction to transfer the cases
     to the CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam. The subsequent events could
     not cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction and as such, the entire
     proceedings got vitiated, it was further submitted.
7.   Obviously, the same contentions, with necessary factual changes,
     were made on behalf of the first respondent in the latter appeal,
     who was the accused in CC No.15/2022, in Writ Petition No.5441
     of 2022 to support the prayer to quash CC No.15/2022 and all
     further proceedings thereof. The appellant herein who was one of
     the respondents therein, strongly resisted the contentions regarding
     inherent lack of jurisdiction and contended that the proceedings did
     not get vitiated as contended by the Writ Petitioners.
8.   A scrutiny of the impugned judgment would reveal that the High
     Court upon reviewing the sequence of events held that the transfer
     of cases from the Additional CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam to Kurnool
     is not per se wrong and, in fact, it is in accordance with law. We may
     hasten to add here that the said finding is not under challenge before
     us, certainly, at the instance of the first respondent in the captioned
     appeals and hence, the same need not be considered any further. But
     then, even after holding thus, the High Court went on to consider the
     questions whether the lack of consent as also the lack of notification
     for a Special Court under the PC Act would go into the root of the
     matter and thereby vitiate the proceedings. Both the questions were
     answered in the affirmative and accordingly WP No.26990 of 2021 as
     also WP No.5441/2022 were allowed. Resultantly, the registration of
     the respective FIR and filing of the chargesheetswere held as vitiated
     for the absence of consent from the State of Telangana to the CBI,
     to register the FIRs and conduct investigation. It is aggrieved by
     the quashment of such proceedings viz., registration of FIR, filing
138                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of charge sheet and all further proceedings involved in CC No.13
       of 2022 and CC No.37 of 2020 (now CC No.15/2022) as per the
       impugned common judgment that the appellant herein preferred the
       captioned appeals.
9.     Heard Shri M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General for the
       appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that the
    impugned common judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and
    liable to be interfered with, for its failure to take into consideration
    various crucial factors in their true perspective. It is, inter alia,
    contended that Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 dated 26.05.2014
    was not properly considered and appreciated appropriately. It is
    submitted that the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 would clarify the
    position that all ‘laws’ applicable to the undivided State of Andhra
    Pradesh as on 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the newly
    created States due to bifurcation, namely, the State of Telangana and
    the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014, despite the bifurcation
    of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till altered, repealed or
    amended. It is also the contention that even after bifurcation of
    Andhra Pradesh, the S.P., CBI, Hyderabad and office of S.P. CBI
    Hyderabad were not deprived of their identity as ‘Special Police
    Force’ and to drive home the point the learned Additional Solicitor
    General, relied on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab
    and Others v. Balbir Singh& Ors.1 It is also contended that the
    High Court had failed to appreciate the fact that as on the date of
    the registration of the FIR involved in the captioned appeals there
    was consent to CBI in terms of the provisions of the Section 6 of
    the DSPE Act. It is furthermore contended that the High Court had
    gone wrong in holding that G.O.M.S. Nos.158 dated 28.11.2014, 67
    dated 01.06.2016, No.168 dated 05.12.2017 and dated 03.08.2018
    extending the general consent as orders pertaining to the State of
    Andhra Pradesh only.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the appeals
    stoutly resisted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
    and submitted that the entire sequence of events including the
    trapping, registration of the FIRs, filing of the chargesheets and


1    1975 INSC 238 : [1976] 2 SCR 115 : (1976) 3 SCC 242
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          139

                 The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                            A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

     taking cognizance etc. were considered by the High Court ultimately
     to arrive at the conclusion that the registration of the FIRs as also
     filing of the chargesheets in the cases on hand, are vitiated by law.
     It is further submitted that since such irregularities would go into the
     root of the matter denude jurisdiction. Hence, the High Court was
     right in quashing the respective FIRs and all further proceedings in
     pursuance thereof.
12. Before considering the rival contentions to examine their tenability it is
    only appropriate to scan the impugned judgment to find out the reasons
    specifically assigned by the High Court in coming to the conclusion
    that the registration of the FIR and the filing of the chargesheet in the
    cases on hand are vitiated in law. Such a consideration would reveal
    that the High Court considered the questions as to whether CBI had
    power to register the FIRs and investigate offences qua respondent
    No.1 in the appeals, whether the FIR for offences under the PC Act
    could be registered in Hyderabad in the State of Telangana when
    the offences alleged to have been committed at places within the
    State of Andhra Pradesh and for that reason whether the CBI Court
    in the State of Telangana got jurisdiction to try the offence under the
    PC Act in respect of offences allegedly committed at places falling
    within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
13. Obviously, the High Court interpreted Section 4 of the PC Act and
    the decision of this Court in C.B.I., A.H.D., Patna v. Braj Bhushan
    Prasad,2 and such other cases to come to the conclusion that
    the Court of the Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad got no
    jurisdiction to try the offences involved in the cases on hand under
    the provisions of the PC Act. The High Court has also arrived at
    the conclusion that there was no consent required in terms of the
    provisions under Section 6 of the DSPE Act to register and investigate
    the offences against the Central Government employees on the date
    of registration of the FIR in the cases on hand.
14. The impugned judgment would reveal that the High Court firstly
    considered the power of the CBI sans consent of the Government
    of Andhra Pradesh to register FIR on the date(s) of registration of
    the subject FIRs and further to investigate them. After referring to



2   2001 INSC 485 : [2001] Supp. 3 SCR 627 : (2001) 9 SCC 432
140                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Section 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, it was held that they would make
       it clear that though under Section 5 the Central Government could
       extend the area of operation of the said Act in a State it would
       be subject to the consent of the State Government concerned.
       To fortify the said view the High Court referred to and relied on
       the decision of this Court in Fertico Marketing and Investment
       Private Limited and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
       Anr.3 The High Court also took note of the fact that in the cases on
       hand the causative incident that led to the registration of the FIRs
       occurred in districts, Kurnool and Anantpur respectively, within the
       State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court has also taken note of the fact
       that investigation was conducted by the CBI and chargesheets were
       submitted thereafter in the Special Court for CBI Cases at Hyderabad
       and thereafter, that Court took cognizance of the offence(s). Whether
       such actions are legal or of the nature which would go into the root
       of the matter to vitiate the proceedings, were considered taking note
       of various factors and facts. The High Court considered the facts
       that the A.P. Reorganisation Act came into force on 02.06.2014 and
       thereafter, general consent was given only by the State of Andhra
       Pradesh as per GOMS No.158 dated 28.11.2014 and then by GOMS
       No.67 dated 01.06.2016 and yet again by GOMS No.184 dated
       05.12.2017 and 109 dated 03.08.2018 to come to the conclusion
       that as on the date(s) of registration of the subject FIRs there was
       no power vested with the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana to
       register crime in regard to the offence taken place in Kurnool as also
       in Anantapur in the State of Andhra Pradesh and also to conduct
       investigation thereon. It is also evident that the High Court arrived
       at the conclusion that GOMS 88 dated 07.08.2012 by which CBI
       Court at Hyderabad was given the power to exercise jurisdiction
       over the districts in Telangana as also Rayalaseema Districts of
       Andhra Pradesh namely, Chittoor, Ananthapur, Kadappa and Kurnool
       ceased to be in force after the State Reorganisation Act came into
       force on 02.06.2014 and therefore, the Court of the Special Judge
       for CBI Cases, Hyderabad ceased to have jurisdiction to deal with
       the cases under the PC Act in respect of the aforementioned four
       districts falling within the Rayalaseema regions of State of Andhra


3   2020 INSC 645 : [2020] 12 SCR 956 : (2021) 2 SCC 525
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            141

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

     Pradesh. It was also held that in such circumstances the Court of
     Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad could not have entertained
     the cases after 02.06.2014 as the required notification under the PC
     Act was not issued subsequent to 02.06.2014, the appointed day
     under the A.P. Reorganisation Act.
15. Having gone through the reasons that made the High Court to
    come to such conclusions as mentioned and to quash the subject
    FIRs and the subsequent proceedings thereon, we will consider
    the contentions raised to mount attack against the same. As noted
    hereinbefore, the core contention of the appellant is that the High
    Court had failed to consider Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 dated
    26.05.2014 and its true import. Indeed, the said circular was issued
    in terms of Section 3 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act. Para 2 of the
    said circular reads thus:-
           “2. In this connection, it 1s stated that “law” as defined in
           section 2(f) of the Act is as follows :-
           (f) ‘law’ includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation,
           order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument
           having, immediately before the appointed day, the force
           of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of
           Andhra Pradesh”
16. Clauses (i) to (iii) of Paragraph 6 of the said circular are also relevant
    in the circumstances and they read thus:
           “(i) all the laws, which were applicable to the undivided
           State of Andhra Pradesh, as on 1-6-2014, would continue
           to apply to the new States i.e., State of Telangana and
           State of Andhra Pradesh created Dy the Central Act, with
           effect from 2-6-2014 notwithstanding the bifurcation of the
           erstwhile Pradesh;
           (ii) to facilitate their application in respect of the State
           of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, the
           appropriate Government may, before the expiration of
           two years from 2-6-2014, by order, make such adaptions
           and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal
           or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and
           thereupon,
142                                                            [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


            (iii) every such law as adapted or modified as above, will
            continue till such time it altered, repealed or amended by
            a competent Legislature or other competent authority, in
            the respective State.”
17. In contextual situation it is relevant to refer to the decision of this
    Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and Ors.
    v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd. and Ors.4 This Court
    was considering the question of continuity of laws in force in the
    erstwhile State in the new States carved out of erstwhile State with
    reference to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. It was held that
    States reorganisation legislations must be construed in the light of
    the unusual situation created by the creation of a new State and
    the object sought to be achieved. It was held therein further that the
    laws which were applicable to the undivided State of Bihar would
    continue to apply to the new States created by the Act and that the
    laws that operated would continue to operate notwithstanding the
    bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and creation of the new
    State of Jharkhand. They would continue in force until and unless
    altered, repealed or amended, it was further held.
18. It is in the light of the ratio of the aforesaid decision and the wide
    definition given to the term ‘law’ under paragraph 2 of the circular
    dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of the AP Reorganisation
    Act, that the effect of GOMS No.88 dated 07.08.2012 and such
    other Government orders or other instruments in force and brought
    into force, have to be looked into while considering the questions
    involved in instant cases. In terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the PC Act
    only a Special Judge designated as such by notification, by a State
    or Central Government would have the power to entertain cases
    under the provisions of the PC Act. Indisputably, as per GOMS No.88
    dated 07.08.2012 the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh notified the
    CBI Court at Hyderabad to exercise jurisdiction over the districts in
    Telangana as also in Rayalaseema Districts of AP namely, Chittoor,
    Anandpur, Kadappa, and Kurnool to try offences under the PC
    Act. The effect of the said GO dated 07.08.2012 and some other
    Government orders, hereinafter to be referred, have to be looked
    into in the light of Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014, as stated earlier.


4   2004 INSC 378 : [2004] Supp. 2 SCR 633 : (2004) 6 SCC 689
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           143

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

19. The term ‘law’ was defined in para 2(f) of the Circular Memo dated
    26.05.2014. The said definition, as extracted above, would reveal
    that it would take in any order, bye-law, scheme, notification, or any
    other instrument having immediately before the appointed day viz.,
    02.06.2014, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing
    State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the cumulative effect of para 2(f),
    clauses (i) to (iii) of para 6 of the said Circular dated 26.05.2014 as
    also other notifications issued prior to 02.06.2014 or in modification
    of the then existing law(s), as it is to be understood in terms of the
    definition in para 2(f), especially, in the absence of repeal or alteration
    or amendment in the State of Telangana also have to be looked into
    while considering the question(s) involved in the cases on hand.
20. Now, we will refer to GORT No.1247, Home (SC.A Department)
    dated 14.05.1990 whereunder general consent for investigation by
    the CBI in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh was accorded under
    Section 6 of the DSPE Act to exercise powers and jurisdiction under
    the said Act. It, in so far as relevant, reads thus:-
           “Under Section-6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
           Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of 1946), the Governor of
           Andhra Pradesh hereby accord general consent to all
           the members of Delhi Special/ Establishment to / Police
           exercise the powers and jurisdiction under the said act
           in the State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of the
           offences mentioned hereunder against (i) Private Persons
           for alleged offences committed whether acting separately
           or in conjunction with Central Government/undertaking
           employees and in case of State Govt. employees upto First
           Gazetted level when acting along with or in conjunction
           with private persons or Central Govt. employees. However,
           in case of State Government employees from 2nd level
           gazetted posts sitting or former legislators, Members of
           Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly (even
           Ministers, Chairmen of Corporation etc.) the CBI shall
           obtain prior consent of the State Government in each case”.
21. In continuation of the GORT No.1247, Home (SC.A Department)
    dated 14.05.1990, the general consent of Government of Andhra
    Pradesh to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the DSPE Act was
    accorded, rather, extended as per subsequent Govt. orders such as
144                                                            [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       GOMS No.477, Home, “SC.A Department” dated 18.06.1994, GOMS
       No.158, Home, “SC.A Department” dated 28.11.2014, GOMS No.67,
       Home, “SC.A Department” dated 01.06.2016, GOMS No.184,Home,
       “SC.A Department” dated 05.12.2017 and GOMS No.109 Home,
       “SC.A Department” dated 03.08.2018. Obviously, under the said
       Government orders the order granting general consent as has been
       mentioned in 14.05.1990 was extended within the limits of Andhra
       Pradesh. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that
       under such Govt. orders according general consent to exercise the
       powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act against private persons for
       alleged offences whether acting separately or in conjunction with
       Central Govt./undertaking employees and State Govt. employees
       upto first gazetted level, to all members of DSPE. This cannot be
       construed or understood to mean that employees of the Central
       Government/Central Government undertaking and State Government
       employees up to first gazetted level are beyond the reach of the CBI
       and only private persons acting separately or in conjunction with such
       categories of employees alone can be proceeded against. It is also
       to be noted that even according to the High Court in the impugned
       judgment, GOMS dt. 07.08.2012 issued by the State of Andhra
       Pradesh CBI Court at Hyderabad was given the power to exercise
       jurisdiction over Rayalaseema districts of Andhra Pradesh, namely,
       Chittoor, Anantpur, Kadappa and Kurnool to try cases registered
       under the PC Act and the said provision continued thereafter by
       subsequently issued Govt. orders. In view of the impact of para 2(f)
       and clauses (i) to (ii) under para 6 such notification or circulars which
       were in force prior to the bifurcation or modified subsequently, in
       the absence of repeal or amendment as relates the subject matter
       involved thereunder within the limits of State of Telangana should
       be presumed to exist within the limits of State of Telangana and
       therefore, the finding of the High Court all such ‘laws’ pertain only
       to the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be the correct law and the
       legal fiction should be that such laws would be in force in the new
       State unless altered or repealed or amended by it, in accordance
       with law. If in the light of the aforesaid Govt. orders especially dated
       26.05.2014, the position is not construed in the said manner it will
       create only lawlessness or in other words a total vacuum in the subject
       matter(s) in which event persons could engage in such offences with
       impunity to certain extent. There cannot be any doubt that virtually
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                         145

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

     it is to avoid such a situation that the aforementioned Government
     orders were issued and, therefore, any contra-construction would
     defeat the very soul of the provisions under the PC Act as also
     the very intent and purpose of the Government orders which were
     given the status of ‘law’ by virtue of definition under para 2(f) of the
     Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of the AP
     Reorganisation Act.
22. In the light of the discussion as above and construction of the Govt.
    orders it can only be held that the High Court had erred in holding that
    there was no notification issued conferring the status of Special Court
    in terms of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court, Hyderabad. Now,
    the transfer of the cases concerned subsequent to the CBI Policy
    Division order regarding the re-defining the territorial jurisdiction of
    CBI, Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam branches dated 28.03.2019
    and issuance of notification by the High Court of Telangana vide
    ROC No.334/E-1/2008 dated 03.09.2019 and the transfer of CC
    Nos.35 of 2020 and 37 of 2020 to the Court of the Special Judge
    for CBI Cases, Kurnool were held as in accordance with law by the
    High Court. In such circumstances and in the light of the conclusion
    already arrived at,the terms of the provisions under circular memo
    dated 26.05.2014 all “laws” applicable to the undivided State of Andhra
    Pradesh on 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the new States,
    namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
    despite the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till
    such time they were altered, repealed or amended.
23. Another aspect that skipped the attention of the High Court, which
    will independent of the aforesaid consideration and conclusion on
    the Government orders, cloth the CBI with the power to register and
    investigate the offence alleged against the first respondent in the
    captioned appeals.
24. A. Satish Kumar, the first respondent in the former appeal was the
    accused in CC No.13 of 2022. He was working as Superintendent in
    Central Excise at Nandyal (Kurnool) district. Sri Challa Sreenivasulu
    was working as Accounts Assistant in the office of the Senior Divisional
    Financial Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal. The offence
    alleged against both of them was under Section 7 of the PC Act,
    which is a Central Act. Bearing in mind the aspects we will consider
    the challenge against the impugned judgment.
146                                                             [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


25. Irrespective of the place of posting, the aforesaid factual position
    would go onto show that they were Central Government employees/
    Central Government Undertaking employees and allegedly committed
    serious offence under PC Act, which is a Central Act. Therefore, the
    question is in such circumstances merely because such an employee
    works within the territory of a particular State,to register an FIR
    by the CBI in connection with commission of an offence under a
    Central Act whether consent from the State Government concerned
    is required or not? The said question is no longer a legal conundrum
    in view of the decisions of this Court in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of
    Bihar and Ors.5 and in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt.
    Ltd.’s case (supra).
26. In Kanwal Tanju’s case (supra), after extracting Section 5 and 6 of
    DSPE Act, in para 19 thereof, this Court held thus: -
            “19. Sections 5 and 6 of the 1946 Act read thus: -
            5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special
            police establishment to other areas. - (1) The Central
            Government may by order extend to any area (including
            Railway areas) ina State, not being a Union territory the
            powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special
            Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences
            or classes of offences specified in a notification under
            section 3.
            (2) When by an order under sub-section (1) the powers and
            jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment
            are extended to any such area, a member thereof may,
            subject to any orders which the Central Government may
            make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police
            officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such
            functions, be deemed to be a member of the police force
            of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and
            privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer
            belonging to that police force.
            (3) Where any such order under sub-section (1) is made
            relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions


5   2020 INSC 357 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 395
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            147

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

           of sub-section (2), any member of the Delhi Special Police
           Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may,
           subject to any orders which the Central Government may
           make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer
           in charge of a police station in that area and when so
           exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer
           in charge of a police station discharging the functions of
           such an officer within the limits of his station.
           6. Consent of State Government to exercise of powers
           and jurisdiction.—Nothing contained in section 5 shall
           be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special
           Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in
           any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway
           area, without the consent of the Government of that State.
           Such a consent may not be necessary regarding the
           investigation by the special police force (DSPE) in respect
           of specified offences committed within Union Territory
           and other offences associated therewith. That may be
           so, even if one of the accused involved in the given
           case may be residing or employed in some other State
           (outside the Union Territory) including in connection with
           the affairs of the State/local body/corporation, company
           or bank of the State or controlled by the State/institution
           receiving or having received financial aid from the State
           Government, as the case may be. Taking any other view
           would require the special police force to comply with the
           formality of taking consent for investigation even in relation
           to specified offence committed within Union Territory, from
           the concerned State merely because of the fortuitous
           situation that part of the associated offence is committed
           in other State and the accused involved in the offence is
           residing in or employed in connection with the affairs of
           that State. Such interpretation would result in an absurd
           situation especially when the 1946 Act extends to the whole
           of India and the special police force has been constituted
           with a special purpose for investigation of specified offences
           committed within the Union Territory, in terms of notification
           issued under Section 3 of the 1946 Act.
148                                                    [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       26. Indeed, the said notification contains a proviso, which
       predicates that if any public servant employed in connection
       with the affairs of the Government of Bihar is concerned
       in offences being investigated by the special police force
       pursuant to the notification, prior consent of the State
       Government qua him shall be obtained. This proviso
       must operate limited to cases or offences which have
       been committed within the territory of the State of Bihar.
       If the specified offence is committed outside the State of
       Bihar, as in this case in Delhi, the State police will have
       no jurisdiction to investigate such offence and for which
       reason seeking consent of the State to investigate the
       same would not arise. In our opinion, the stated proviso
       will have no application to the offence in question and
       thus the Delhi special police force/DSPE (CBI) must be
       held to be competent to register the FIR at Delhi and also
       to investigate the same without the consent of the State.
       27. …
       28. Suffice it to observe that the proviso contained in the
       stated notification dated 19.2.1996 cannot be the basis
       to disempower the special police force/DSPE (CBI) from
       registering the offence committed at Delhi to defraud
       the Government of India undertaking (BRBCL) and
       siphoning of its funds and having its registered office at
       Delhi. Allegedly, the stated offence has been committed
       at Delhi. If so, the Delhi Courts will have jurisdiction to
       take cognizance thereof. The State police (State of Bihar)
       cannot investigate the specified offences committed and
       accomplished at Delhi, being outside the territory of the
       State of Bihar. It must follow that the consent of the State
       of Bihar to investigate such offence is not required in law
       and for which reason, the special police force would be
       competent to carry on the investigation thereof even if
       one of the accused allegedly involved in the commission
       of stated offence happens to be resident of the State of
       Bihar or employed in connection with the affairs of the
       Government of Bihar and allegedly committed associated
       offences in that capacity. In other words, consent of the
       State under Section 6 cannot come in the way or constrict
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            149

              The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                         A. Satish Kumar & Ors.

           the jurisdiction of the special police force constituted under
           Section 2 to investigate specified offences under Section 3
           of the 1946 Act committed within the Union Territories.
           Indeed, when the Court of competent jurisdiction proceeds
           to take cognizance of offence and particularly against the
           appellant, it may consider the question of necessity of a
           prior sanction of the State of Bihar qua its official(s) as
           may be required by law. That question can be considered
           on its own merits in accordance with law.”
27. In the decision in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.’s
    case (supra), this Court in paragraph 26 held thus:-
           “26. Recently, a bench of this Court consisting one of us
           (Khanwilkar J.) had an occasion to consider the aforesaid
           provisions of DSPE Act, in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar,
           (2020) 20 SCC 531. In the said case, the question arose,
           as to whether when an offence was committed in the Union
           Territory and one of the accused was residing/employed
           in some other State outside the said Union Territory, the
           Members of DSPE had power to investigate the same,
           unless there was a specific consent given by the concerned
           State under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. The contention
           on behalf of the appellant before the High Court was that
           since the appellant was employed in connection with the
           affairs of the Government of Bihar, an investigation was
           not permissible, unless there was a specific consent of
           State of Bihar under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. This Court
           rejected the said contention holding that if the offence is
           committed in Delhi, merely because the investigation of
           the said offence incidentally transcends to the Territory
           of State of Bihar, it cannot be held that the investigation
           against an officer employed in the territory of Bihar cannot
           be permitted, unless there was specific consent under
           Section 6 of the DSPE Act. While considering the argument
           on behalf of the State, that such a consent was necessary
           for CBI to proceed with the investigation, this Court held
           that the respondent-State having granted general consent
           in terms of Section 6 of the DSPE Act vide notification
           dated 19.02.1996, it was not open to the State to argue
           to the contrary.”
150                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


28. In the contextual situation it is also relevant to refer to Resolution
    No.4-31-61-Tdated 01.04.1963 of Ministry of Home Affairs establishing
    the Central Bureau of Investigation. Going by the said resolution
    dated 01.04.1963, it provides the function of the CBI incases where
    public servants under the control of the Central Government are
    involved either themselves or with the State Government servants
    and/or other person.
29. Thus, upon diallage we find it difficult to accede to the contentions
    of the first respondent in the captioned appeals made in a bid to
    support and sustain the impugned judgment.In such circumstances,
    considering the questions from such different angles we are of the
    firm view that the impugned judgment whereunder subject FIRs and
    further proceedings in pursuance thereof, were quashed cannot be
    sustained.
30. Hence, the appeals are allowed. Accordingly, the impugned common
    order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the High Court in WP No.26990
    of 2021, and 5441 of 2022 are set aside. Resultantly, CC Nos.13 of
    2022 and 15 of 2022 arising respectively from the FIR Nos.10A/2017
    and RC22(A)/2017, CBI, HYD, are restored into the files of Court of
    Special Jude for CBI Cases, Kurnool, where it was pending at the
    time of passing of the impugned order. Needless to say, that after
    following the requisite procedures and in accordance with law the
    trial Court shall continue with those cases against the respective
    first respondent in the captioned appeals.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey