State ACB Can Probe Central Employees Under PC Act: SC

State ACB Can Register and Investigate PC Act Cases Against Central Government Employees: Supreme Court

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition by an accused Central Government employee and upheld a High Court ruling that Rajasthan's Anti-Corruption Bureau has jurisdiction to register and investigate Prevention of Corruption Act offences against him, and that the prosecution need not be instituted only by the CBI. Section 17 of the PC Act fixes the investigating officer's rank but does not exclude the State police; the CBI-State division of cases is for convenience (paras 3, 8, 11-12).

Key holdings

A State anti-corruption bureau has jurisdiction over PC Act offences by Central Government employees committed in the State (paras 3, 8).

The CBI's role under the DSPE Act is permissive and does not divest the regular police of their power to investigate (para 9).

Sharing corruption cases between the CBI and State agencies is an arrangement for convenience, not a legal bar (paras 5, 8).

The investigation must still be done by an officer of the rank Section 17 specifies (para 8).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The High Court considered two questions: whether the State's Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) may register, investigate and charge-sheet a Prevention of Corruption Act offence committed in Rajasthan by a Central Government employee, or whether jurisdiction lies exclusively with the CBI, without whose approval or consent the ACB cannot proceed; and whether an ACB charge-sheet filed without that approval is valid for the trial (para 2). It answered both against the petitioner (para 3). The order sets out the background: the CBI derives from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and by arrangement the CBI investigates corruption by Central Government employees while the State police handle State employees (paras 4-5).

Court's Findings

The High Court took the correct view that the prosecution need not be instituted only by the CBI (para 3). The Code of Criminal Procedure is the parent statute: a special law displaces its investigation provisions only if it expressly or impliedly provides otherwise, failing which Section 156 prevails (para 6). The PC Act is a special Act, and the Code applies where not inconsistent with it (para 7). The PC Act prescribes no separate investigation procedure; Section 17 only requires an officer of a specified rank and does not prevent the State police or a State agency from registering or investigating corruption cases against Central Government employees (para 8). Entrusting such cases to the CBI and State employees' cases to the ACB is for convenience and to avoid duplication; the ACB is a wing of the State police and PC Act offences are cognizable (para 8). A.C. Sharma held that the DSPE Act is only permissive and does not divest the regular police of their power (para 9). The Court agreed with Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions upholding State investigations against Central Government employees and found no error in the High Court's judgment (paras 10-11).

Legal Principle

Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act regulates only the rank of the investigating officer. It does not exclude the State police or a State anti-corruption agency from registering and investigating corruption offences by Central Government employees; the CBI's power under the DSPE Act is permissive, not exclusive (paras 8-9).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For a Central Government employee booked by a State anti-corruption bureau, the order shuts out a challenge based only on the absence of a CBI investigation or CBI consent: the High Court's answers to both questions stood (paras 2-3, 11). The defence can still test whether the investigating officer met the rank in Section 17 (para 8). The order is a reasoned, reportable dismissal of a special leave petition, not a full appeal judgment, and says nothing about the facts of the accusation. A different safeguard, prior approval before investigating a public servant, is discussed in Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

A.C.Sharma v. Delhi Administration (1973) 1 SCC 726
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9
A Central Public Works Department employee tried after investigation by the Delhi Administration's Anti-Corruption Department failed to show his trial was vitiated: the DSPE Act does not divest the regular police of their power to investigate and is only permissive or empowering.
Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 SCC OnLine MP 83
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10
A Division Bench held that the State Police, regular or Special Police Establishment, can investigate bribery and corruption offences against Central Government employees posted in the State; the Court agreed with the dictum.
Arvind Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1294
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10
A Full Bench took the same view, that such offences against Central Government employees posted in the State can be investigated by the regular police force or the Special Police Establishment; the Court agreed with the dictum.

View all precedents (5)

G.S.R. Somayaji (Dr.) v. State through CBI 2001 SCC OnLine AP 1196
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10
A trap laid and an investigation done by the State agency against Central Government employees cannot be questioned as illegal for want of jurisdiction; the Court agreed with the dictum.
The State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 5730
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10
Cited with a ‘See’ signal after the Court agreed with the Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh decisions.