The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had quashed several First Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Apex Court termed the High Court’s decision a result of a “hyper-technical approach” and held that under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the existing notifications declaring ACB offices as police stations continued to be in force in the new State of Andhra Pradesh.
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeals filed by the Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P., restoring the criminal proceedings against various respondents.
The Supreme Court dealt with the legal validity of FIRs registered by the ACB at Vijayawada following the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court had quashed these FIRs, ruling that the ACB office at Vijayawada was not specifically notified as a “police station” under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court overturned this decision, clarifying that under Section 2(s), a specific place need not be declared as a police station, as even a “post” held by a police officer constitutes one. The Court further held that the High Court failed to appreciate the continuity of laws provided under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Background
The case arose from a batch of FIRs registered between 2016 and 2020 at the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Police Station, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and the residual State of Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the administrative setup of the ACB was shifted from Hyderabad to the new capital region in Vijayawada.
The respondents (accused) challenged these FIRs before the High Court, primarily arguing that the ACB office at Vijayawada had not been specifically notified as a “police station” under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). They contended that without such a notification published in the Official Gazette, the station lacked jurisdiction to register FIRs.
The High Court accepted this plea and quashed the FIRs, holding that in the absence of a specific notification under Section 2(s) declaring the Vijayawada office a police station, the officers there lacked jurisdiction. The High Court also held that a subsequent clarification issued by the State Government in 2022 (G.O.Ms. No. 137) could not apply retrospectively.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants (ACB): Represented by learned Senior Counsel, the appellants argued that the High Court ignored the mandate of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, specifically Sections 100, 101, and 102. They submitted that G.O.Ms. No. 268 dated 12.09.2003, issued by the undivided State, had declared ACB offices as police stations with jurisdiction over the entire State. They contended that this law continued to bind the parties post-bifurcation, and the relocation of the office to Vijayawada did not divest it of jurisdiction.
The Respondents: The respondents argued that a notification under Section 2(s) of the CrPC is a mandatory statutory requirement. They submitted that the State Government itself recognized this lacuna, evidenced by the issuance of the 2022 Government Order and earlier notifications for the Crime Investigation Department (CID). They supported the High Court’s view that without a specific notification for the Vijayawada unit, the registration of FIRs was without jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined Section 2(s) of the CrPC, which defines a “police station,” and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
On Interpretation of Section 2(s) CrPC: The Court provided a detailed interpretation of Section 2(s), observing that the provision concerns itself with two distinct and separate categories: ‘post’ and ‘place’. The Bench clarified that the definition clause is both exhaustive and inclusive. It is exhaustive to mean any post or any place, while it includes any local area specified by the State Government.
The Court held:
“Suffice it is to state that, under the definition, there need not be a specific place to be declared as a police station, as even a post being held by a police officer would constitute a police station.”
Additionally, regarding Section 2(o) of the CrPC, the Court noted that it is an inclusive definition referring to a police officer at the station house, placed next in rank to the officer in charge, and above the rank of constable, unless the State Government directs otherwise.
On the Reorganisation Act and Continuity of Laws: The Bench placed heavy reliance on Sections 100, 101, and 102 of the 2014 Act.
- Section 100 ensures that territorial references in existing laws refer to the territories within the existing State until provided otherwise.
- Section 102 empowers courts to construe laws to facilitate their application to the new States.
The Court held that the definition of “law” under Section 2(f) includes notifications. Therefore, the 2003 G.O. continued to operate. Justice Sundresh, writing for the Bench, observed:
“The State of Andhra Pradesh continues to be the same State, as what has been done is, by merely carving out some of its territories, a new State has been created… Section 102 of the 2014 Act leaves no room for any other interpretation… when the Courts are expected to follow the existing law, it is axiomatic that the mandate applies to the executive and every other authority.”
On the High Court’s Approach: The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the High Court’s reasoning, stating:
“In our considered view, the approach of the High Court is nothing but a travesty of justice. If, on a hyper-technical ground, the FIRs are quashed, the High Court is duty-bound to lay down the law with respect to the jurisdiction that otherwise exists.”
On the 2022 Clarification: Regarding the Government Order of 2022 which clarified the jurisdiction of the Vijayawada office, the Apex Court rejected the High Court’s finding that it could not apply retrospectively. The Court noted:
“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.”
Precedents: The Court relied on Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Ranchi v. Swarn Rekha Cokes & Coals (P) Ltd. (2004) and State, CBI v. A. Satish Kumar (2025), reaffirming that laws applicable to an undivided State continue to apply to new States until altered, repealed, or amended.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court issued the following specific directions:
- The Appellant (ACB) is at liberty to proceed with the investigation.
- Final reports must be filed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
- The appellants shall not take any coercive steps by way of arresting the respondents.
- The respondents are directed to cooperate with the expeditious conclusion of the investigation.
- The High Court shall not entertain any more challenge to the FIRs or the pending investigation.
- Liberty is granted to the respondents to raise all other issues only after the conclusion of the investigation.
Case Details
- Case Title: The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. v. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc.
- Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2026 [@ SLP (Criminal) Nos. 14321-14333 of 2025]
- Corum: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
