State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Can Investigate Corruption Offences Against Central Govt Employees: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has the authority to register the crime and investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that are allegedly committed by Central Government employees.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that there was no special provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter, 'PC Act') or the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter, DSPE Act') excluding or preventing the State police or a Special Agency of the State from investigating cases relating to the corruption of the Central Government employees.

"None of the provisions of the P.C Act or DSPE Act authorizes CBI or Central Vigilance Commission or any other Central Government Agency alone to investigate in matters relating to the Central Government employees. In the absence of a specific provision in the DSPE Act or PC Act divesting the power of the regular police authorities to investigate into the offences under any other competent law, it cannot be said that the power of the State police or a Special Agency of the State to register a crime and investigate into the offence allegedly committed by the Central Government employees in their State is taken away. For these reasons, I hold that the VACB, being a specially constituted body to investigate into the bribery, corruption and misconduct mainly under the P.C. Act is always clothed with the authority to investigate offences involving corruption that take place within the State, whether it is committed by a Central Government employee or a State Government employee," the Court observed. 

VACB had registered a crime against the Village Extension Officer and Implementing officer of a Project, Thalayolaparamba (1st accused), and three officials of the North Malabar Gramin Bank, Thalayolaparamba Branch (accused no. 2-4). The prosecution allegation against the accused persons was that they had conspired together to cheat the Grama Panchayat and the beneficiaries of the intended Project. An amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- was allegedly misappropriated by the accused persons in furtherance of the conspiracy. 

The accused-bank employees filed separate petitions before the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kottayam ('Court below'), averring that the VACB, Kottayam had no authority or jurisdiction to register the crime and conduct the investigation in as much as they are Central Government employees. This contention was accepted by the Court below and the accused persons were discharged. It is against the same that the present revision petitions were filed by the State. 

Special Public Prosecutor for VACB A. Rajesh submitted that the PC Act does not exclude or prevent the State Police or a Special Agency of the State like VACB from investigating cases relating to corruption committed by the public servants of the Central Government and the impugned order of the Court below was thus unsustainable. 

The counsel for the accused-respondents however argued that Gramin Banks are governed by the policies of the Central Government, and hence, the CBI, Central Vigilance Commission or such other Central Government Authority alone would have the authority and jurisdiction to investigate the offences allegedly committed by them under the PC Act. It was thus contended that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 

The Court at the outset determined that the North Malabar Gramin Bank could only be treated as a Central Government institution and that the Central Government has the power and control over it and its employees, upon perusal of the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. 

The Court perused Section 156 of Cr.P.C. which stipulates the powers of police officers to investigate cognizable offences, and Section 4 IPC which deals with the trial of offences under the IPC and other law. It thus proceeded to observe that the Cr.P.C. is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiry into and trial of cases, and added that the existence of a special law by itself cannot be taken to exclude the operation of Cr.P.C. unless the special law expressly or impliedly provides a separate provision for investigation.

On a conjoint reading of Section 4(2) and Section 156 Cr.P.C., the Court discerned that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall be applied to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PC Act which is a Special Act.

 The Court was of the considered view that the provisions of the PC Act did not envisage a separate procedure for conducting investigation, and that the offences under the statute could be investigated by the State agency or the Central agency or any police agency, with the qualification that the police officer shall be of a particular rank.

"Section 17 does not exclude or prevents the State Police or a Special Agency of the State from registering a crime or investigating cases relating to bribery, corruption and misconduct against Central Government employess. It is for convenience and to avoid duplication of work, the Central Bureau of Investigation - a specialised investigating agency under the Special Police Establishment - is entrusted with the task of investigation of the cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of Central Government and its Undertakings and the Anti -Corruption Bureau - a specialised investigating agency of the State - is entrusted with the task of investigation of the cases of corruption and bribery against the employees of State Government and its Undertakings," the Court observed. 

It thus held that the VACB, which is a wing of the State Police, could investigate the offences under the PC Act, provided that the same is done by a police officer of the rank specified in Section 17 of the Act. 

The Court further noted that the accused persons had contended that even if the entire allegations in the final report were believed in toto, no offence under the PC Act would be made out against them. The Court in this case opined that the said aspect was not considered by the court below on merits, and it thereby directed the latter to consider the application for discharge preferred by the accused on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

The respondent-accused persons were represented by Advocates Shameena Salahudheen, A. Arunkumar, Sachin George Aramban, and Heerakrishna T.H. Senior Public Prosecutor S. Rekha also appeared on behalf of the State.

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 380

Click Here To Read/Download The Order