Laws Applicable To Andhra Pradesh Continue To Apply To New States Of Telangana & AP After Bifurcation : Supreme Court

A bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal set aside a common judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were quashed on grounds that the offences alleged were within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh, even after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State.

Further, since the FIRs on the said offences were registered by the CBI Hyderabad, after the transfer to Andhra Pradesh jurisdiction, the consent of the new State of Andhra Pradesh was needed under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for the CBI to investigate, the High Court held. The High Court found that since no consent was there, the proceedings were vitiated.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court held that explicit consent was not required under the 1946 legislation since the accused were officers of the Central Government.

Facts of case

The CBI has challenged the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated April 13, 2023 passed in two writ petitions (26990/2021 and 5441/2022).

In the first writ petition, the case arises from the FIR registered against the first Respondent for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). As per the allegation, the first Respondent was working as Superintendent, Central Excise, Nandyal, District of Andhra Pradesh.

In the second appeal, against the first Respondent, FIR was registered under Section 7 of the PC Act against an accused working as Accounts Assistant in the office of Senior Divisional Financial Manager, Guntakal.

In both cases, chargesheets were filed before the Court of Principal, Special Judge for CBI, Hyderabad. In both cases, cognisance was taken on July 17, 2018 and August 3, 2018 respectively.

On March 28, 2019, CBI, policy division order, redefining the territorial jurisdiction of the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam branches was issued.

On September 3, 2019, the High Court of Telangana issued a notification regarding the jurisdiction of four Rayalaseema Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, namely: Kurnool, Kadappa, Chittoor and Ananthapur. The notice was issued for their inclusion in the jurisdiction of the CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam, by deleting the same from the jurisdiction of the CBI Courts at Hyderabad.

On June 2, 2014, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, bifurcated Andhra Pradesh into the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. However, despite the geographical bifurcation, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh continued to have jurisdiction over both States till December 2018.

The first FIR occurred within the limits of Kurnool District and the second FIR occurred within the jurisdictional limits of Ananthapur, both were in the new Andhra Pradesh state after the bifurcation.

After the High Court of Telangana's notification, the cases were accordingly transferred to CBI Court, Vishakhapatnam and later to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Kurnool.

Therefore, the respective first Respondents moved writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court arguing that the consent of the Andhra Pradesh Government was required for the investigation after bifurcation. As per the Government order in 1990, in the undivided Andhra Pradesh, general consent for investigation by the CBI was given for the entire State as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

It was also contended that while the FIRs were registered by the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, the alleged offences took place Kurnool and Ananthapur districts. Based on this, it was contended that the entire investigation is vitiated.

Further, it was argued that under the PC Act, a specific notification was to be issued by the State or the Central Government designating a Special judge to try offences under PC Act.

Lastly, it was also argued that till December 2017, the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not accord consent for prosecution of Central Government servants under the PC Act.

What did the High Court say?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that transfer of cases from Vishakhapatnam to Kurnool is not per se wrong.

It should be noted that this was not challenged before the Court.

The High Court answered on the issues of whether lack of consent from the Andhra Pradesh Government and the lack of notification for a Special Court under the PC Act would go into the root of the matter and thereby, vitiate the proceedings in affirmative.

It was held that although the operation of the CBI extended in the State, it was subjected to the consent of the State Government.

Resultantly, proceedings in both cases were vitiated. Therefore, CBI is in appeal against the order. It has been contended by them that the High Court failed to consider Circular Memo dated May 26, 2014, issued in terms of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, relating to the question of continuity of laws in force after the bifurcation.

What did the Supreme Court say?

On continuity of law after bifurcation

The Supreme Court referred to Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and Ors. v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd. and Ors (2004) wherein the question of continuity of laws in force in the erstwhile State in the new States carved under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 was considered.

The Court held that after the bifurcation, the laws applicable to the undivided State of Bihar would continue to apply to the new States notwithstanding the bifurcation of erstwhile Bihar and the creation of State of Jharkhand.

The Court in the present case considered that as per the GOMS No.88 dated August 7, 2017, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh notified the CBI Court at Hyderabad to exercise jurisdiction over the districts in Telangana as also in Rayalaseema Districts namely Chittoor, Anandpur, Kadappa, and Kurnool under the PC Act.

It also looked at the GORT No.1246, whereby general consent for investigation by the CBI for the entire Andhra Pradesh was accorded in 1990. The same was extended within the limits of Andra Pradesh through subsequent orders issued in 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2018.

In considering all this, the Supreme Court found that the High Court wrongly found that the all such “laws” under the Circular Memo dated May 26, 2014  issued under the AP Reorganization Act 2014 pertained to only the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The Court said: “In view of the impact of para 2(f) and clauses (i) to (ii) under para 6 such notification or circulars which were in force prior to the bifurcation or modified subsequently, in the absence of repeal or amendment as relates the subject matter involved thereunder within the limits of State of Telangana should be presumed to exist within the limits of State of Telangana and therefore, the finding of the High Court all such 'laws' pertain only to the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be the correct law and the legal fiction should be that such laws would be in force in the new State unless altered or repealed or amended by it, in accordance with law.”

On whether proceedings were liable to be vitiated

Based on this finding, the Court held that the High Court had erred in holding that there was no notification issued conferring the status of Special Court in terms of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court, Hyderabad.

The Court held that in both cases, the first Respondents were Central Government employees who had allegedly committed offences under a Central Act.

Therefore, the Court framed the question as: “merely because such an employee works within the territory of a particular State, to register an FIR by the CBI in connection with commission of an offence under a Central Act whether consent from the State Government concerned is required or not?”

Considering the factual position laid down in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors.(2020) and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.'s (2020), the Court held that States' consent was not required. It was held that  the quashing of proceedings cannot be sustained.

Case Details: The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023