Summary
The High Court quashed a batch of Prevention of Corruption Act FIRs registered at the ACB Central Investigation Unit, Vijayawada, holding that the office had never been notified as a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC after Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated. The Supreme Court reversed. It held that the 2003 Government Order declaring the ACB Central Investigation Unit a police station for the whole State was 'law' that continued to apply under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and that the 2022 Government Order was merely clarificatory. The investigations were revived.
Issues
- Whether the office of the Joint Director, Central Investigation Unit, ACB, Vijayawada, could register FIRs without a fresh notification under Section 2(s) CrPC after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.
- Whether G.O.Ms. No. 268 of 2003, declaring ACB offices as police stations, continued to operate in the residual State of Andhra Pradesh under Sections 2(f), 100, 101 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
- Whether G.O.Ms. No. 137 of 2022 was a clarification or a new declaration that could not apply retrospectively.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(s), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The definition of 'police station' covers both a post and a place, and the declaration it requires is formal and may be general or specific. Even a post held by a police officer can be a police station. The Court rejected the High Court's view that only a Gazette notification declaring a particular place could satisfy the section. (¶¶ 4, 5, 24)
- Section 2(o), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An inclusive definition of 'officer in charge of a police station'. The 2003 Government Order used it to declare ACB officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as officers in charge. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Section 2(f), Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014The wide definition of 'law' includes orders, notifications and other instruments having the force of law, which brings G.O.Ms. No. 268 of 2003 within it. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Sections 100, 101 and 102, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014These are transitional provisions meant to avoid a legal vacuum. Existing laws continue to apply over their old territories until altered. Section 101 permits adaptation, and Section 102, a non-obstante clause, lets courts and authorities construe and apply existing law even without adaptation. No specific adoption order was needed for Andhra Pradesh. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 10)
- Corresponding provisions, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The Court noted that the relevant provisions of the BNSS are pari materia with those of the CrPC and dealt only with the CrPC. (¶ 4)
Held
- Under Section 2(s) CrPC a police station may be a declared post or place. The declaration is formal and may be general or specific, and there need not be a specific place declared. G.O.Ms. No. 268 of 2003 validly declared the Central Investigation Unit of the ACB a police station with jurisdiction over the entire State, and it continues to govern the field. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Under the Reorganisation Act, 2014, the 2003 Government Order is 'law' that continued after bifurcation. Andhra Pradesh remained the same State with some territory carved out, so no specific adoption order was required. Since Section 102 obliges courts to apply existing law even without adaptation, the executive and every other authority are equally bound. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Following Balbir Singh, paragraphs 26 to 28 of Swarn Rekha Cokes (affirmed in Lafarge Dealers Association) and A. Satish Kumar, the existing laws of the undivided State continue in force in both successor States until altered, repealed or amended. A contrary construction would create a vacuum and defeat the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (¶¶ 11, 23, 25, 26)
- The High Court's insistence on a Gazette notification under Section 2(s) was unacceptable; what matters is substance and compliance in spirit. G.O.Ms. No. 137 of 2022 was clarificatory, so no question of retrospective application arose. (¶ 24)
- Quashing FIRs on a hyper-technical ground of jurisdiction, without even indicating which forum would have jurisdiction, was a travesty of justice and a misreading of the law. (¶¶ 17, 22, 23)
Result
Appeals allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside. The appellants may proceed with the investigations, with final reports to be filed within six months and no arrest of the respondents, who must cooperate. The High Court is not to entertain further challenges to the FIRs or the pending investigations. The respondents may raise other grounds, including against chargesheets, only after the investigation concludes. An impleading application was allowed.