The Andhra Pradesh government, on Tuesday, told the Supreme Court that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can’t parachute in the cases of alleged corruption leading to loss to the state exchequer that happened before its birth on July 26, 2018.

The Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, requires the investing agencies to take prior sanction of the competent authorities for the registration of FIR and initiating “inquiry, inquiry or investigation” against a public servant responsible for the decision or recommendation resulting loss to the State exchequer and corruption.

Advertisement

Responding to the contention by the former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu that no FIR and the consequent investigation against him could have been launched without sanction from the State Governor, the Andhra Pradesh government told a bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi that the application of Section 17A which was inserted in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on July 26, 2018, was prospective and retrospective.

Telling the bench that no prior sanction of the State Governor was required for registering FIR and the consequent investigation against former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu for alleged corruption and loss to the State in his skill development project during 2014-2016, the senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said, “Section 17A is not an umbrella to protect all who are corrupt but only the honest public servant. You cannot parachute back into the times when it was not born.”

 Meeting the arguments advanced by senior advocate Harish Salve – appearing for Chandrababu Naidu – that no registration of FIR including “inquiry, inquiry or investigation” could be initiated against the former Chief Minister without the prior sanction of the State Governor, Mukul Rohatgi said, “There is no bar in the law for the registration of an offence under the law that was in operation at the time when crime was committed.”

In a poser from Justice Bela M. Trivedi whether “Can there be an FIR for the offence that is no more an offence (at a later date), Rohatgi said, “There is no bar in the law for the registration of an offence under the law that was in operation (when the crime was committed) that now stands deleted. Unless it is barred by limitation.  Or there is a bar in the new law.”

Justice Bela M. Trivedi said that there was a distinction between the FIR being registered when the earlier law was operating and the FIR being registered when a new law was in force.

“Can an FIR be registered for an offense committed in the past but not an offence at present” Justice Bela M. Trivedi said, making a distinction between the FIRs registered earlier under the old law and at a later date when the law is not in operation.

Rohati said that Section 17A came with a “package of wholesale amendments” to Sections 7 8 9, 10, and 13, of the Prevention of Corruption Act on July 26, 2018, but this did not obliterate the old package of original provisions for the registration of offences was in operation.

As Justice Trivedi said, “If laws are brought which gives a greater protection …” to a public servant for the acts done when he was serving,  Mukul Rohatgi said that it (new provision) will not apply to Chandrababu Naidu as a “new package will not parachute in the old law or package. If that was to be so, then parliament has to say so, which it cannot say.”

Earlier in the morning senior advocate Harish Salve took the bench through various judgments of the top court to underline that the operation of Section 17A of the PC Act which was inserted in 2018, was retrospective and not just prospective and was applicable in the case of the former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu as well.

Salve said that if the court were to accept his case, then all the proceedings initiated before the ACB court under the PC Act will go as under the anti-corruption law the proceedings can take place before a sessions court.

However, Mukul Rohatgi countered it and said that one of the allegations against Chandrababu Naidu under the PC Act is cheating and cheating is also a penal provision under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Since arguments by Mukul Rohatgi were inconclusive, he will resume them on Friday – October 13 – when the matter is posted for further hearing at 02.00 pm. The Friday hearing will also witness Salve advancing his rejoinder argument to those advanced by the Andhra Pradesh government.

The top court is hearing a plea by Chandrababu Naidu seeking the quashing of the FIR against him rooted in the Skill Development scam.   He has challenged the State High Court judgment rejecting his plea for the quashing of FIR.

Chandrababu Naidu is currently in judicial custody.