Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Ambawat, Adv. Ms. Sruthi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Adv. Ms. Riya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shivmangal Sharma, AAG Mr. Puneet Parihar, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court addressed two primary questions regarding jurisdiction and procedural validity in cases involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by central government employees within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan. The Court clarified that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Rajasthan has the authority to register, investigate, and file charge-sheets against such individuals, even without prior approval from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (!) (!) .

• The Court emphasized that investigation and prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be conducted by both state agencies and central agencies, such as the CBI, and that the existence of a special law does not exclude the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), particularly Section 156, which authorizes police officers to investigate cognizable offences (!) (!) .

• The Court noted that the CBI was established as a specialized agency with jurisdiction extended to cover offences involving central government employees and their affairs, but this does not preclude state police or other state agencies from investigating offences related to central government employees within their territorial jurisdiction (!) (!) .

• The Court clarified that investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act is permissible by police officers of specified ranks, and that the Act does not prescribe a separate investigative procedure. Therefore, investigations by state police or the CBI are valid provided they follow the procedural requirements and are authorized according to the law (!) (!) .

• The Court reaffirmed that the jurisdiction of state police to investigate offences involving central government employees is recognized and supported by legal principles, and that such investigations are permissible whether conducted by the regular police or specialized agencies like the CBI or the Anti-Corruption Bureau (!) .

• The High Court’s judgment was upheld, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, confirming that the actions of the Rajasthan ACB in registering and investigating the case were lawful and within their jurisdiction (!) .

• The Court also disposed of any pending applications related to the case (!) .

These points collectively affirm that law enforcement agencies at the state level, including the Anti-Corruption Bureau, have the authority to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed within their territorial jurisdiction, regardless of whether the accused is a central government employee, and that such investigations are consistent with statutory provisions and procedural law.