THE STATE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus A. SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 01-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[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 thereaft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.