The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in a significant ruling, has held that the state’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has the jurisdiction to register criminal cases, conduct investigations, and file charge-sheets against Central Government employees for offences committed under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act within the state’s territory. Justice Sudesh Bansal clarified that the jurisdiction to probe such cases is not exclusive to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and that a charge-sheet filed by the ACB without the CBI’s prior approval is valid in law.
The judgment was delivered on a batch of petitions filed by various Central Government employees who were facing investigation or prosecution by the Rajasthan ACB. The court consolidated the petitions to address two primary legal questions of significant public importance.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, all employees serving under the Central Government, challenged the authority of the Rajasthan ACB to investigate and prosecute them for corruption charges. They contended that any such action by a state agency against them was without jurisdiction and legally invalid. The core of their argument was that only the CBI, a central agency, is competent to investigate corruption allegations against central government functionaries. This raised fundamental questions about the overlapping jurisdictions of state and central investigative bodies in corruption cases.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Contentions (The Accused Employees): The counsels for the petitioners argued that the CBI (Crime) Manual and the ACB Crime Manual create a clear procedural framework where cases “substantially and essentially against Central Government employees” must be investigated by the CBI. They submitted that while the State ACB might register a case in urgent situations, such as a red-handed trap, it is legally obligated to inform the CBI and either seek its consultation to continue the investigation or hand over the case entirely.
To support their argument, they invoked the legal principle laid down in Taylor Vs. Taylor, which posits that if a law prescribes a certain way to do something, it must be done in that way only and not in any other. Furthermore, they placed significant reliance on a 2015 notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs concerning the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which explicitly barred Delhi’s ACB from taking cognizance of offences against Central Government officials. The petitioners pointed out that the Supreme Court had upheld this notification in the case of Government (NCT Of Delhi) v. Union of India.
Respondents’ Contentions (ACB and CBI): In a united stand, the counsels for both the Rajasthan ACB and the CBI vehemently opposed the petitioners’ arguments. They contended that the provisions in their respective crime manuals are merely “internal administrative arrangements” designed to ensure smooth functioning, avoid duplication of efforts, and facilitate coordination between the two agencies. They argued that these manuals do not have the force of statutory law and cannot be used by an accused to claim a lack of jurisdiction.
The respondents emphasized that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, itself makes no distinction between Central and State Government employees for the purpose of investigation. They distinguished the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding Delhi’s ACB, explaining that it was based on the unique constitutional status of the NCT of Delhi under Article 239-AA, which does not have legislative power over the subject of ‘Police’. This is not the case for Rajasthan, which is a full-fledged state. They further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, which held that the CBI Crime Manual is a set of administrative instructions and cannot override the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After a thorough examination of the statutes, crime manuals, and relevant case law, Justice Sudesh Bansal systematically addressed the issues. The Court first noted that the jurisdictional challenge was raised by the accused individuals for their “own beneficial interest,” and not as a result of a conflict between the ACB and the CBI, which were in agreement.
The Court observed that the provisions in the CBI and ACB manuals are intended to “ensure close cooperation between both agencies” and that they should “render mutual assistance to each other, instead of falling in conflicts on jurisdictional issues.” It held that these procedural guidelines are administrative in nature and cannot be interpreted as a statutory bar on the ACB’s jurisdiction.
Analyzing the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the Court found no provision that expressly or impliedly excludes the State Police or ACB’s power to investigate Central Government employees. The judgment firmly stated, “the exclusion of jurisdiction of ACB against the employee of Central Government may not be inferred, once it is not specifically barred in the Statue.”
The Court decisively rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the Government (NCT of Delhi) case, clarifying that the ruling was specific to Delhi’s constitutional limitations and had no applicability to the State of Rajasthan.
Citing multiple judgments, including A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration and decisions from the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Kerala, the Court reiterated the principle that an irregularity in investigation does not vitiate a trial unless a miscarriage of justice is proven.
In its concluding findings, the High Court answered the legal questions against the petitioners, holding:
- The Rajasthan ACB is fully authorized and possesses jurisdiction to register a criminal case, conduct an investigation, and file a charge-sheet against a Central Government employee for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed within Rajasthan.
- A charge-sheet filed by the ACB in such a case without the approval or consent of the CBI is legally valid and within jurisdiction.
The court concluded with the observation that “the State Police/ ACB of Rajasthan, possesses concurrent and co-extensive powers and jurisdiction with the CBI/ DSPE to investigate matters relating to bribery and corruption against Central Government employees.”
In light of these conclusions, the Court vacated all interim stay orders in the respective petitions and directed that the cases be listed before the regular bench for final disposal.
