A Satish Kumar vs. The Registrar (Administration)

Held

The Court held that the registration of the FIR and the filing of the charge sheet were clearly vitiated by law. The Court found that the CBI, functioning under the DSPE Act, requires the consent of the State Government to exercise its powers in a State, as stipulated in Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Since the alleged offence occurred in Andhra Pradesh, and the FIR was registered after the bifurcation of the state, the absence of express consent from the Government of Andhra Pradesh rendered the registration and investigation illegal. Furthermore, the Court held that the CBI Court at Hyderabad could not entertain the case after 02.06.2014 due to the absence of the required notification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for prosecuting Central Government servants. The Court concluded that any transgression of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the entire trial. While the transfer of the case was considered in accordance with law due to the bifurcation and residuary powers, the initial lack of consent and the subsequent lack of a proper court notification were fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, all subsequent proceedings were held to be bad in law. The Court allowed the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, A. Satish Kumar, a Superintendent of Central Tax, GST, filed a writ petition challenging the legality of conducting a trial against him in C.C.No.35 of 2020 (later renumbered as C.C.No.13 of 2022) pending before the Special Judge for CBI Cases. The petitioner was initially booked by FIR on 09.05.2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for an alleged offence that occurred in Nandyal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. The CBI registered the FIR and filed a charge sheet before the CBI Court in Hyderabad. Subsequently, the case was transferred to CBI Courts in Visakhapatnam and then to Kurnool. The petitioner contends that the CBI's registration and investigation of the case were contrary to law, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of the CBI and the relevant courts, especially after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the registration of the FIR and subsequent investigation by the CBI were vitiated due to a lack of prior consent from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, given that the alleged offence occurred in Andhra Pradesh but the FIR was registered on 09.05.2017, after the appointed day of bifurcation (02.06.2014)? 2. Whether the CBI Court at Hyderabad had the jurisdiction to entertain the case after 02.06.2014, considering the absence of a necessary notification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for prosecuting Central Government servants in Andhra Pradesh? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the CBI required express permission from the Government of Andhra Pradesh to investigate the case under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, which was not obtained. He also contended that the CBI Court at Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case after the bifurcation of the state and the non-issuance of a specific notification for a Special Court under the PC Act. He relied on case law to argue that the lack of jurisdiction vitiates the entire proceedings. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, including the Deputy Solicitor General and Standing Counsel for CBI, argued that the proceedings were not vitiated and the writ petition should be dismissed. They contended that the court should not take a lenient view in cases involving public servants and should allow the prosecution to proceed. They relied on case law to support their contentions.