The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s order confirming the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)’s jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
A Central Government employee filed the SLP challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated 03.10.2025. He sought to quash the ACB FIR, investigation, and charge-sheet, claiming that ACB lacked jurisdiction over PC Act offences against Central Government employees. The core claim was that only CBI has exclusive jurisdiction under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, and ACB cannot proceed without CBI’s prior approval.
Rajasthan ACB had registered a case under the PC Act against the petitioner, a Central Government employee, for alleged corruption within Rajasthan. ACB investigated, filed a charge-sheet before a competent court without CBI consent. The petitioner challenged this before the Rajasthan High Court, raising two questions: (i) whether State ACB can investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees or if CBI consent is mandatory; and (ii) whether a charge-sheet without CBI approval is valid. High Court answered both against the petitioner, holding that ACB has full jurisdiction. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court via SLP.
The petitioner argued that the DSPE Act’s enlargement covers all Central Government departments, making CBI the sole investigator for such corruption, and State ACB needs CBI’s consent before instituting an FIR or commencing investigation.
The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma rejected this, clarifying that DSPE Act is a permissive legislation that empowers the CBI but does not divest State police jurisdiction under CrPC Section 156(1)-(2). It was noted that although CBI investigates Central Government cases and State ACB handles State employees to avoid duplication, there is no statutory bar on State ACB from Central Government cases. The Court agreed with the High Court that PC Act Section 17 mandates only rank of investigator, not exclusivity of the agency.
The Court held that State ACB has full jurisdiction to register, investigate, and file charge-sheets under PC Act against Central Government employees without CBI consent, as these are cognizable offences under CrPC Section 156(1)-(2), which is applicable unless displaced by special law. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, affirming Rajasthan High Court’s ruling that ACB charge-sheet is valid and the trial can proceed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s): Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Mr. Amit Ambawat, Ms. Sruthi Iyer, Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Ms. Riya Sharma, Ms. Rupali Panwar, Advs.; Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Shivmangal Sharma, AAG; Mr. Puneet Parihar, Adv.
