“Irrespective of the place of posting, the aforesaid factual position would go onto show that they were Central government employees/Central government undertaking employees and allegedly committed serious offence under Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, which is a central act,” the bench held.In this particular case, two FIRs were registered by the CBI against two central government employees – A Sathish Kumar and another – working in Andhra Pradesh under the PC Act. After registration of FIRs by the CBI, the two accused persons then moved the Andhra Pradesh HC claiming that the general consent given for the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (DSPE) by the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh cannot apply to the state after its bifurcation. They also submitted to the apex court that a fresh consent was needed from the newly formed state of AP.After heaing their plea, the HC quashed the proceedings, while granting relief to them. The CBI then filed an appeal before the top court. Justice Ravikumar ruled the HC had erred in asking for a fresh consent.
Source link
