Rajasthan High Court Upholds State ACB's Authority to Investigate Central Government Employees Under Prevention of Corruption Act Without Mandatory CBI Approval

Introduction

The Rajasthan High Court recently addressed critical jurisdictional questions concerning the authority of State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to investigate corruption cases involving Central Government employees. In Mukesh Singh Son of Shri Dashrath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, the Court examined whether the State ACB requires prior consent from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before registering cases, conducting investigations, and filing charge-sheets against Central Government personnel under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The judicial pronouncement clarifies the concurrent jurisdiction of State investigative agencies and the CBI in corruption matters, emphasizing that administrative arrangements between agencies cannot be exploited by accused individuals to challenge prosecutions.

The Rajasthan High Court consolidated multiple petitions that raised two fundamental legal issues of significant importance:

Primary Issue One: Jurisdictional Authority

Whether the State Anti-Corruption Bureau of Rajasthan possesses jurisdiction to register criminal cases, investigate, and file charge-sheets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against individuals serving under the Central Government when the offence occurs within Rajasthan's territorial boundaries, or whether such jurisdiction exclusively belongs to the Central Bureau of Investigation without whose prior approval or consent, the ACB cannot proceed.

Primary Issue Two: Validity of Charge-sheets

Whether charge-sheets filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against Central Government employees or persons serving under the Central Government before competent courts, without obtaining CBI approval or consent, can be considered legally valid and within jurisdiction to initiate and complete criminal trials for such offences in accordance with law.

Factual Matrix and Contentions

Context of Dispute

The Court specifically noted that these legal issues did not arise from any dispute between the ACB and CBI themselves. Rather, these questions emerged because accused individuals, facing corruption charges, raised these objections for their own benefit. The accused persons contended that only the CBI possessed competence and jurisdiction to investigate matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees.

Arguments Advanced by Accused Petitioners

The accused petitioners' counsel relied extensively on selective provisions from the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 (previously CBI Crime Manual, 2005) and the ACB Crime Manual, 2015. These manuals specifically prescribe that cases substantially and essentially involving Central Government employees or concerning Central Government affairs shall be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE)/CBI.

The petitioners argued that while State agencies may register cases and State Police or State Anti-Corruption Bureau may continue investigations in certain urgent circumstances, they must inform the CBI of such cases and seek the CBI's consultation before proceeding. According to petitioners, failure to follow this procedure renders the investigation and charge-sheet unlawful.

The accused persons invoked the legal principle established in Taylor Vs. Taylor (1876 1 Ch D 426), asserting that where statutory power is granted to accomplish something in a specific manner, that thing must be done in that prescribed way only or not at all, and cannot be accomplished through alternative methods.

Additionally, petitioners placed substantial reliance on the Gazette Notification dated 21st May 2015, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. This notification substituted paragraphs in the earlier notification dated 8th November 1993, as amended through notification dated 23rd July 2014. The amended notification specifically stated:

"This notification shall only apply to officials and employees of the National Capital Territory of Delhi subject to the provisions contained in the article 239AA of the Constitution. The Anti-Corruption Branch Police Station shall not take any cognizance of offences against Officers, employees and functionaries of the Central Government."

The petitioners emphasized that these amended notifications were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but their validity was upheld in Government (NCT Of Delhi) v. Union of India [(2020) 12 SCC 259]. Consequently, they argued that investigations commenced by the ACB and charge-sheets filed by the ACB against Central Government employees should be declared illegal, void, and without jurisdiction.

Counter-Arguments by Respondents

The respondents vigorously contested the petitioners' contentions, arguing that arrangements and procedures prescribed in the Crime Manuals of CBI and ACB exist solely to maintain internal administrative arrangements and avoid duplication of efforts. These manuals ensure smooth functioning of investigation agencies at Central and State levels.

According to respondents, accused persons under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot exploit departmental arrangements and procedures—prescribed for official purposes to maintain discipline—for their benefit. The respondents emphasized that the CBI Crime Manual itself acknowledges that due to limited resources and the need to concentrate on cases with inter-state or international ramifications, it may not be possible for the CBI to undertake all cases falling under specified categories.

Respondents argued that investigation of particular offences, even if notified under Section 3 of the DSPE Act, remains discretionary between State Police and CBI. Ordinary cases of theft, misappropriation, cheating, and similar offences, even when committed by Central Government employees, must be handled by State Police.

The respondents stressed that the Prevention of Corruption Act contains no provision compartmentalizing public servants into separate categories based on whether they serve State Government or Central Government. Therefore, merely based on selected clauses from the CBI Crime Manual—without reading the manual holistically—it cannot be established as a Rule of Law that State Investigation Agencies like ACB lack authority and jurisdiction to investigate bribery and corruption matters involving Central Government employees, especially when such offences occur within the State's territorial boundaries.

The general arrangements prescribed in manuals constitute merely internal arrangements between agencies to regulate case investigation assignment and prevent overlapping or duplication of efforts. The objective is enabling both agencies to work effectively and systematically in preventing corruption by public servants and promoting transparency in public duty discharge. Both agencies exist to supplement each other and cooperate in achieving common objectives. No Rule of Law excludes ACB from investigating bribery and corruption cases involving Central Government employees.

Moreover, respondents argued that accused-petitioners should not be permitted to seek implementation of CBI and ACB Crime Manuals by treating them as legislative enactments, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court have categorically held that the CBI Crime Manual is not a statute and has not been enacted by the legislature.

Significantly, respondents highlighted that in the present matters, the jurisdictional issue regarding investigation and charge-sheet submission against Central Government employees by ACB did not arise between CBI and ACB; rather, both agencies concurred that investigations carried out by ACB and charge-sheets submitted by ACB against the accused-petitioners—who are Central Government employees—are valid and well within jurisdiction. Therefore, accused-petitioners cannot exploit internal administrative arrangements regulating CBI and ACB functioning for their own benefit by claiming that ACB investigations/charge-sheets lack jurisdiction.

Distinction from NCT Delhi Case

Respondents further argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment upholding the notification dated 21st May 2015 in Government (NCT Of Delhi) (supra) pertained to altogether different issues. That notification was issued by the Central Government specifically for limiting the ACB jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi to employees of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, while excluding NCT Delhi ACB jurisdiction to investigate offences committed by Central Government Officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987.

That notification was confined exclusively to NCT of Delhi. Therefore, petitioners' reliance on this judgment supporting the two legal issues raised herein is misplaced, as no such specific notification has been issued by the Central Government of India for the State of Rajasthan. By no stretch of imagination can ACB jurisdiction exclusion against Central Government employees be inferred.

Genesis of CBI and Rajasthan ACB

Establishment of Rajasthan ACB

The Anti-Corruption Bureau constitutes a State-level agency in Rajasthan, established to investigate matters related to bribery and corruption committed by public servants and government employees where the cause of action arises within the State's territorial jurisdiction. It operates as an independent and separate branch of Rajasthan Police, headed by the Special Inspector General of Police, under the administration and control of the Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan.

The State Government, exercising powers conferred by virtue of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 4, BNSS 2023), declared the office of Special IG, ACB Rajasthan, as a police station, namely the Anti-Corruption Police Station, Rajasthan. The ACB handles various case types, including red-handed trap cases, disproportionate asset cases, embezzlement cases, and misuse of public funds cases involving public servants.

Establishment of CBI

The Central Bureau of Investigation was established in 1963 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, as a Special Police Establishment (SPE) under the DSPE Act. Over the years, the CBI has emerged as India's premier domestic anti-corruption and crime-investigating agency. Its field and operational area have expanded from bribery and government corruption matters to investigation of breaches of Central laws, multi-state organized crimes, and offences or classes of offences notified by the Central Government under Section 3 of the DSPE Act.

No restrictions exist on matters that may be referred to CBI by constitutional Courts, but subordinate Courts are not competent, in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [now Section 175(3) of BNSS 2023], to direct CBI to conduct investigations.

The CBI derives its investigative powers from the DSPE Act. Section 2 of the DSPE Act prescribes DSPE jurisdiction to investigate offences notified under Section 3 of the Act in Union Territories. However, DSPE Act jurisdiction can be expanded by the Central Government to include other cases, including Railway cases and matters in States, under Section 5(1) of the Act, provided the State Government accords consent under Section 6 of the Act.