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 | Overrules the High Court decision; affirms Supreme Court precedents on continuity of law post-reorganisation |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the ACB CIU, Vijayawada office remains a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC after the 2014 bifurcation by virtue of pre-existing Government Orders read with Sections 100–102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondents challenged FIRs registered by the ACB CIU Vijayawada on jurisdictional grounds (no Section 2(s) notification). Appellants relied on Government Orders and circulars that declared the CIU office a police station. The High Court quashed all FIRs for lack of a fresh Gazette notification. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and subsequent Supreme Court benches |
| Overrules | The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s quashing of FIRs for lack of fresh Section 2(s) notification |
| Follows | State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Assn.; State, CBI v. A. Satish Kumar |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that pre-2014 Government Orders (G.O.Ms. No. 268/2003) declaring ACB offices as police stations continue to confer jurisdiction after state bifurcation.
- Holds that Sections 100–102 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act preserve existing notifications and circulars as “law,” dispelling the need for fresh Gazette notifications.
- Affirms that Circular Memo 13665/SR/2014 has retrospective effect and binds both successor States.
- Rejects hyper-technical challenges to FIRs based solely on absence of a new Section 2(s) notification.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Definition of Police Station (CrPC): Section 2(s) CrPC includes any “post” or “place” declared by the State Government; Section 2(o) defines “officer in charge.”
-
Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 268/2003): Declared various ACB offices, including the CIU, as police stations and designated officers in charge.
-
Reorganisation Act 2014 (Sections 100–102): Existing laws (notifications, orders, circulars) in force immediately before the appointed day continue to apply to both residual Andhra Pradesh and Telangana unless amended or repealed. Section 2(f) defines “law” to include notifications and orders.
-
Clarificatory Circular (13665/SR/2014): Reiterates the continuity of pre-bifurcation laws; binds successor States by virtue of Section 3 of the Reorganisation Act.
-
Precedents on Continuity of Law: State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh: administrative orders of the undivided State continue post-reorganisation; Swarn Rekha Cokes: notifications are “law” under Reorganisation Act and persist unless altered; State, CBI v. Satish Kumar: same principle applied to CBI territorial jurisdiction.
-
Conclusion: Absence of fresh Gazette notification does not oust jurisdiction; High Court’s quashing of FIRs on that ground was unsustainable.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants):
- Sections 101/102 of the Reorganisation Act and G.O.Ms. No. 268/2003 preserve ACB CIU Vijayawada’s police-station status.
- The High Court’s insistence on a fresh Gazette notification is a hyper-technical approach contrary to legislative intent.
- Relied on Circular Memo 13665/SR/2014 and Supreme Court precedents affirming continuity of administrative orders as law.
Respondents (Accused):
- No specific Section 2(s) notification exists for the CIU Vijayawada office, so FIR registrations lack jurisdiction.
- The 2022 clarificatory G.O. cannot retroactively validate FIRs registered between 2016–2020.
- Absence of Gazette notification is fatal to the authority of the police station under 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. These office-in-charge declarations stemmed from G.O.Ms. No. 268/2003, which had declared various ACB posts as police stations. Following the Andhra Pradesh bifurcation in 2014, a series of circulars shifted the CIU from Hyderabad to Vijayawada and affirmed its status. Accused parties challenged the FIRs in the High Court for want of a fresh Section 2(s) notification; the High Court quashed all FIRs on that ground. The Supreme Court restored investigation and proceedings, holding pre-existing orders and circulars sufficient.
Statutory Analysis
- CrPC Section 2(s)/(o): Broad definitions of “police station” (post/place) and “officer in charge.”
- A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014:
- Section 2(f): “Law” includes notifications, orders, circulars.
- Section 100: Territorial extent of pre-bifurcation laws remains unchanged.
- Section 101: Appropriate Government may adapt/modify laws within two years; such adaptations continue in force.
- Section 102: Courts/tribunals may construe pre-existing laws to facilitate application without affecting substance.
- Government Instruments: G.O.Ms. No. 268/2003; Circular Memo 13665/SR/2014; subsequent clarificatory GO 137/2022—all create binding law under the above statutes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions