Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000122-000134 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 52369/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure / anti-corruption jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Andhra Pradesh bifurcation (2014) led to the ACB Central Investigation Unit’s relocation to Vijayawada. FIRs under the PC Act (2016–2020) were challenged for want of a fresh Section 2(s) notification. The High Court quashed all FIRs on that hyper-technical ground. State appeals. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court benches |
| Overrules | High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment quashing FIRs for lack of fresh Section 2(s) notification |
| Distinguishes | Hyper-technical jurisdictional challenges under Section 2(s) CrPC from substantive compliance with Reorganisation Act provisions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that pre-reorganisation notifications under Section 2(s) CrPC survive State bifurcation by virtue of Sections 101–102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
- Confirms that Government Orders and Circulars are “law” under Section 2(f) of the Reorganisation Act and remain effective until expressly amended or repealed.
- Rejects the necessity for fresh official gazette publication of police station declarations post-bifurcation to confer jurisdiction for FIR registration.
- Empowers Anti-Corruption Bureau units to continue registering FIRs under the Prevention of Corruption Act without procedural voids.
- Subordinate courts must refrain from hyper-technical jurisdictional interventions that undermine substantive anti-corruption processes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 2(s) CrPC defines “police station” to include any “post” or “place” declared by State Government; Section 2(o) defines the officer in charge.
- G.O. Ms No 268/2003 declared ACB offices, including the Central Investigation Unit, as police stations with all-State jurisdiction pre-bifurcation.
- Sections 100–102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act preserve all “laws” (inclusive of G.O.s and notifications by Section 2(f)) in the residual State unless amended/repealed within two years.
- Circular Memo No 13665/SR/2014 and G.O. Ms No 137/2022 clarified that the Vijayawada unit continues as a declared police station with State-wide jurisdiction.
- Precedents (Balbir Singh; Swarn Rekha; Madhya Pradesh) establish that administrative orders and notifications survive reorganisation absent express repeal.
- The High Court’s demand for fresh gazette notification is a hyper-technical misreading that would create a jurisdictional vacuum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sections 101–102 of the 2014 Act preserve pre-bifurcation Section 2(s) notifications; no fresh gazette publication required.
- G.O. Ms No 268/2003 and Circular No 13665/SR/2014 validly confer police-station status on ACB units.
- Supreme Court precedents uphold continuity of notifications and administrative orders post-reorganisation.
Respondent
- Lack of a specific Section 2(s) notification for the Vijayawada unit after bifurcation voids its jurisdiction to register FIRs.
- The 2022 Government Order clarifying jurisdiction is not retrospective and cannot validate earlier FIRs.
- Insistence on gazetted notification ensures procedural safeguards and compliance with CrPC.
Factual Background
Between 2016 and 2020, the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s Central Investigation Unit in Vijayawada registered multiple FIRs under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused challenged these FIRs in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, contending that, post-bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, no fresh Section 2(s) CrPC notification had been issued declaring the Vijayawada unit a police station. The High Court quashed all FIRs for lack of jurisdiction and denied retrospective effect to a 2022 clarification. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 2(s) CrPC: Inclusive definition of “police station” by “post” or “place” declared by State Government.
- Section 2(o) CrPC: Defines “officer in charge” of a police station.
- Section 2(f), 100–102 Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014:
- 2(f): “Law” includes enactments, orders, notifications with force of law pre-bifurcation.
- 100: Preserves territorial extent of pre-bifurcation laws.
- 101: Grants State two years to adapt, modify, repeal or amend existing laws.
- 102: Empowers courts to construe existing laws to avoid legal vacuum.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were introduced beyond clarifying existing statutory regime.