The central legal point established in the judgment is that the CBI's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases under the PC Act is contingent upon the State's consent and the existence of a designated Special Court, as per the DSPE Act and PC Act.

ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel, this writ petition is taken up for hearing along with W.P.No.5441 of 2022. The facts and questions of law are similar in both the matters, but this writ petition is taken up for hearing.

2. This Court has heard Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General and the Standing counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

3. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

‘to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of conducting trial in C.C.No.35 of 2020 pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam as illegal and quash the same....’

4. This was amended by this Court by allowing I.A.No.2 of 2022 and the words “C.C.No.13 of 2022 before the Special Judge for CBI cases at Kurnool” is substituted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the registration of the crime, the investigation, taking of cognizance etc., in this case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is totally contrary to law. He points out that even thereafter, the transfer of the case from the CBI Court, Hyderabad to the CBI Court, Visakhapatnam and later to Kurnool etc., is contrary to law.

6. The petitioner’s case is that while he was working as Superintendent, Central Excise in Nandyal, (Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh) an FIR was registered against him on 09.05.2017 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’). The Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case and CBI also filed a charge sheet before the said Court at Hyderabad. The same was numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2018. The Court issued summons and the petitioner appeared before the Court. Thereafter, in September, 2019, the petitioner was informed that the case was transferred to the Special Judge’s Court for Trial of CBI cases, Visakhapatnam and proceedings were issued for the same. Case was later numbered as C.C.No.35 of 2020 before the Special Court for CBI cases at Visakhapatnam. Currently, it is numbered as C.C.No.13 of 2022 and is pending before the Special Court for CBI cases at Kurnool. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into two States by virtue of the A.P. State Reorganisation Act (for short ‘the Act’). He submits that the Act was passed in 2014 and the appointed day is 02.06.2014 on which day the two States were created. It is the contention of the learned counsel that for the CBI to register or investigate the case, permission from the Government of Andhra Pradesh is necessary as per the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (for short ‘the DSPE Act’). He points out that on 09.05.2017, the FIR was registered in Telangana when the alleged offence took place at Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh. He points out that on that particular day, there was no express permission as required under the DSPE Act to investigate the case. He also submits that the entire investigation and the filing of the charge sheet are wrong, since the Court at Hyderabad did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the case. Therefore, according to him, the entire proceedings are vitiated. He also submits that for a case to be tried under the PC Act, a specific notification is to be issued and only the Special Court can try the same. He points out that till December, 2017, the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not permit the prosecution of Central Government servants under the provisions of PC Act and therefore, neither the CBI Court nor the High Court had jurisdiction to transfer the case to the CBI Court, Visakhapatnam or thereafter. Relying upon the case law submitted, learned counsel argues that the entire case is vitiated due to inherent lack of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, he submits that this is a fit case to grant the relief.

7