The Supreme Court has said the CBI does not require the permission of state governments to register an FIR against Centre's officials posted in the different jurisdictions of states.

A bench comprising Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal on January 2 overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order quashing the CBI investigations against two Central government employees over corruption.

"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 PC Act, which is a central act," it said.

The case stemmed from the CBI FIRs against the Central government employees working in Andhra Pradesh.

They had challenged the CBI's jurisdiction in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arguing the general consent granted to the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), by the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh did not automatically extend to the newly formed state of Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation.

The high court agreed with the accused, who were booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and quashed the FIRs insisting a fresh consent from Andhra Pradesh was required.

Justice Ravikumar, who authored a 32-page judgement, differed with the high court's interpretation, and ruled the latter had erred in asking for a fresh state consent for CBI's investigations.

"In such circumstances and in the light of the conclusion already arrived at, the terms of the provisions under circular memo dated May 26, 2014 all 'laws' applicable to the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh on June 1, 2014 would continue to apply to the new states, namely, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh despite the bifurcation of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh till such time they were altered, repealed or amended, it said.

The judgement relied on precedents, including the 1990 government order granting general consent to the CBI and subsequent extensions of this consent in Andhra Pradesh, to justify its decision.

The top court framed a question -- if the CBI required the state government's consent to register an FIR against a Central government employee under a central act simply because the employee worked within the territory of a state -- as the central issue.

It held no such consent was necessary as the offences in question were under a central legislation and involved Central government employees.

The consent regime under Section 6 of the DSPE Act was not designed to obstruct investigations into central offences only because they transpired within a state's territorial limits, it said.

The bench said the general consent granted by a state under the DSPE Act was sufficient for the CBI investigations involving central offences and state-specific formalities, such as a fresh consent, was not required.

"We are of the firm view that the impugned judgment whereunder subject FIRs and further proceedings in pursuance thereof, were quashed cannot be sustained, it said and allowed CBI's appeal.