LexTHE JOINT DIRECTOR (RAYALASEEMA), ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P. & ANR. ETC. versus DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 740 : 2026 INSC 37 The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 122-134 of 2026) 08 January 2026 [M.M. Sundresh* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration A set of cases where, the FIRs registered, for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been quashed, which left the investigation(s) being nipped in the bud in some cases, while, in the others, criminal proceedings stood terminated. The High Court has undertaken the said exercise, solely on the issue of jurisdiction of the police station which registered the FIRs. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.2(s) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 – FIRs were registered at the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Police Station, between the years 2016 and 2020, for offences punishable under the PC Act – All these FIRs were challenged by the persons arrayed as accused, respondent(s) herein, primarily on the ground that the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Police Station, is not notified as a police station u/s.2(s) of the CrPC, 1973 and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to register the FIRs – By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that, in the absence of a notification u/s.2(s) of the CrPC, 1973, the police station, to which the police officers who registered the FIRs belong to, do not have any jurisdiction to register the same – Accordingly, all the registered FIRs were quashed, without even indicating which forum would otherwise have the jurisdiction – Correctness: Held: The approach of the High Court has caused travesty of justice – If, on a hyper-technical ground, the FIRs are quashed, * Author [2026] 1 S.C.R. 741 The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc. the High Court is duty-bound to lay down the law with respect to the jurisdiction that otherwise exists – The High Court has completely misdirected itself while interpreting the law, including the principles laid down by this Court in Swarn Rekha Cokes & Coals (P). Ltd. – Though this decision has been overruled, paragraphs 26 to 28, contained thereunder, have been affirmed by the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – The reasoning of the High Court, that a declaration by way of a notification has to be published in the Official Gazette for due compliance of s.2(s) of the CrPC, 1973, is unacceptable – Similarly, the finding, that the subsequent clarificatory Government Order of 2022 will not have an effect on the FIRs registered, is totally untenable and against the basic canons of law – When a Government Order is issued by way of a clarification, there is no question of any retrospective application – In fact, the said Government Order merely quotes the various provisions of the 2014 Act in order to make the position abundantly clear – This Court took the earlier judgments into consideration and, in fact, dealt with the very same 2014 Act and held that the legal fiction should be so that the existing laws, prior to bifurcation, would continue to be in force in both the States, unless altered, repealed or amended in accordance with law – Any construction to the contrary would defeat the very intent and purpose of the Government Orders, which were given the status of ‘law,’ vide Circular dated 26.05.2014 – Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside – The appellant(s) are at liberty to proceed with the investigation – However, the appellant(s) directed not take any coercive steps by way of arresting the respondents herein – The respondents herein directed to co-operate with the expeditious conclusion of the investigation – The High Court not to entertain any more challenge to the FIRs or the pending investigation. [Paras 22-24, 26, 27, 29] Case Law Cited Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Ranchi and Another v. Swarn Rekha Cokes & Coals (P) Ltd. and Others [2004] Supp. 2 SCR 633 : (2004) 6 SCC 689; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Lafarge Dealers Association and Others [2019] 18 SCR 924 : (2019) 7 SCC 584; State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar and Others [2025] 1 SCR 130 : AIR 2025 Sup
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.