Recently, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing jurisdictional debate by holding that State anti-corruption agencies are legally competent to investigate corruption offences committed by Central Government employees, even without prior approval from the CBI, observing that the law does not confer investigative exclusivity on the CBI.
The case arose from criminal proceedings initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Rajasthan, against a Central Government employee for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner assailed the jurisdiction of the State ACB, contending that since he was a Central Government servant, only the Central Bureau of Investigation, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, could lawfully register and investigate the case. The Rajasthan High Court rejected this contention and upheld the authority of the State ACB. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Apex Court, raising two specific questions on whether State agencies could investigate and file a charge-sheet against Central Government employees under the PC Act without CBI consent.
The Petitioner argued that the scheme of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act vested exclusive jurisdiction in the CBI to investigate corruption cases involving Central Government employees. It was submitted that any investigation or charge-sheet filed by a State agency without prior approval or consent of the CBI was void ab initio and incapable of sustaining a criminal trial. Heavy reliance was placed on the special status of the CBI and the alleged legislative intent to centralise corruption probes concerning Central Government officials.
On the other hand, the State contended that neither the DSPE Act nor the Prevention of Corruption Act creates an investigative monopoly in favour of the CBI. It was argued that the CrPC continues to govern the investigation of cognisable offences unless expressly excluded, and that Section 17 of the PC Act permits investigation by duly ranked police officers, whether belonging to State or Central agencies. The State relied on consistent judicial precedent recognising concurrent jurisdiction.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reiterated that criminal investigation is primarily governed by the CrPC unless a special statute expressly provides otherwise. The Court emphasised that Section 17 of the PC Act regulates the rank of the investigating officer, not the agency itself. Drawing strength from the landmark ruling in A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration, the Bench reiterated that “the scheme of the DSPE Act does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction, power and competence to investigate into offences under any other competent law.”
The Court further clarified that the CBI’s role under the DSPE Act is permissive and enabling, intended to supplement, not supplant, the powers of State police forces. Approving a consistent line of High Court decisions, the Bench concluded that an investigation by a State ACB into corruption allegations against Central Government employees cannot be assailed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction alone.
The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court’s view and holding that State anti-corruption agencies are legally empowered to investigate and prosecute corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees without requiring prior consent or approval from the CBI.
Case Title: Nawal Kishore Meena @ N.K. Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 492 of 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Manish Aggarwal, Adv. Amit Ambawat, Adv. Sruthi Iyer, Adv. Shilpa Sharma, Adv. Riya Sharma, Adv. Rupali Panwar, AOR.Vishal Arun Mishra,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Puneet Parihar, AAG.Shivmangal Sharma,
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
